Filed: Sep. 07, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1358 EDWARD C. DEDRICK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the U.S. Army, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00429-WDQ) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Af
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1358 EDWARD C. DEDRICK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the U.S. Army, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00429-WDQ) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Aff..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1358
EDWARD C. DEDRICK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management;
JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the U.S. Army,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cv-00429-WDQ)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward C. Dedrick, Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward C. Dedrick appeals the district court’s order
denying his summary judgment motion and granting Defendants’
cross-motion for summary judgment on Dedrick’s action seeking
review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s order denying his
claim for disability retirement benefits under the Civil Service
Reform Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. (West 2007 & Supp. 2011).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Dedrick
v. Berry, No. 1:07-cv-00429-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2011). 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