Filed: Aug. 31, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1251 HOWARD M. MOORE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR TALBOT COUNTY; J. SAMUEL MEEK, Superintendent; JOHN MASONE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 3178-AMD) Submitted: August 10, 1999 Decided: August 31, 1999 Before MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1251 HOWARD M. MOORE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR TALBOT COUNTY; J. SAMUEL MEEK, Superintendent; JOHN MASONE, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 3178-AMD) Submitted: August 10, 1999 Decided: August 31, 1999 Before MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1251
HOWARD M. MOORE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR TALBOT COUNTY; J.
SAMUEL MEEK, Superintendent; JOHN MASONE,
Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-
3178-AMD)
Submitted: August 10, 1999 Decided: August 31, 1999
Before MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James C. Strouse, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Leslie Robert
Stellman, Rochelle S. Eisenberg, Gail D. Allen, BLUM, YUMKAS,
MAILMAN, GUTMAN & DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Howard M. Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing his action alleging employment discrimination and related
claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Board of Educ., No.
CA-97-3178-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 28, 1999).* We grant the motion to
submit the case to the court without oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
The order from which Moore appeals was filed on January 27,
1999, and entered on the district court’s docket on January 28, in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson v.
Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2