Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shannon v. Commonwealth of VA, 07-1414 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1414 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 17, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1414 ANDREW SHANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00413-JRS) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1414 ANDREW SHANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00413-JRS) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis McKinley Hairston, Jr., THE GEE LAW FIRM, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy Attorney General, Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney General/Chief, Gregory C. Fleming, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Shannon appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his retaliation claim brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shannon v. Virginia Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, No. 3:06-cv- 00413-JRS (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer