Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Earl Barnett v. U.S. Attorney General, 13-1604 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1604 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1604 EARL BARNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Department of Justice; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00203-IMK-JSK) Submitted: July 26, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1604 EARL BARNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Department of Justice; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00203-IMK-JSK) Submitted: July 26, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Barnett, Appellant Pro Se. Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Earl Barnett appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and dismissing Barnett’s employment discrimination action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Barnett v. U.S. Attorney Gen., No. 1:11-cv-00203-IMK-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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