Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2262 MICHAEL W. MCRAE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-2271-S) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2262 MICHAEL W. MCRAE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-2271-S) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2262 MICHAEL W. MCRAE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 98-2271-S) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael W. McRae appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Because the appeal is frivolous, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McRae v. Maryland, No. CA-98-2271-S (D. Md. Aug. 7, 1998). 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. DISMISSED 2
