Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Demuren v. Old Dominion Univ, 99-1205 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1205 Visitors: 120
Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1205 AYODEJI O. DEMUREN; MOUSTAFA R. MOUSTAFA; DUC THAI NGUYEN; RAMAMURTHY PRABHAKARAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY; ERNEST J. CROSS, JR., in his individual capacity; WILLIAM STANLEY, in his individual capacity; JO ANN GORA, in her individual capacity; WILLIAM A. DREWRY, in his individual capacity; ROBERT L. ASH, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Di
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1205 AYODEJI O. DEMUREN; MOUSTAFA R. MOUSTAFA; DUC THAI NGUYEN; RAMAMURTHY PRABHAKARAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY; ERNEST J. CROSS, JR., in his individual capacity; WILLIAM STANLEY, in his individual capacity; JO ANN GORA, in her individual capacity; WILLIAM A. DREWRY, in his individual capacity; ROBERT L. ASH, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-479-2) Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ayodeji O. Demuren, Moustafa R. Moustafa, Duc Thai Nguyen, Ramamurthy Prabhakaran, Appellants Pro Se. Guy Winston Horsley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Alice Browne, William Eugene Thro, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Patrick B. Kelly, OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting Defen- dants summary judgment in their employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Demuren v. Old Dominion Univ., No. CA-98-479-2 (E.D. Va., Jan. 12, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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