Filed: Apr. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2044 WILLIAM W. SPENCER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES N. MATTIS, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00161-PX) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donna Williams Rucker, TULLY RIN
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2044 WILLIAM W. SPENCER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES N. MATTIS, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00161-PX) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donna Williams Rucker, TULLY RINC..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2044 WILLIAM W. SPENCER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES N. MATTIS, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00161-PX) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donna Williams Rucker, TULLY RINCKEY, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Charles W. Scarborough, Weili J. Shaw, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William W. Spencer, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spencer v. Mattis, No. 8:16-cv-00161-PX (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2016). 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
