Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clarence B. Ross, Sr. v. H. Lawrence Garrett, Iii, Secretary of the Navy, 90-2666 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-2666 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 18, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 920 F.2d 927 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Clarence B. ROSS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. Lawrence GARRETT, III, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-2666. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 16, 1990. Deci
More

920 F.2d 927
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Clarence B. ROSS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
H. Lawrence GARRETT, III, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-2666.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 1990.
Decided Dec. 18, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-89-1957-H)

Clarence B. Ross, Sr., appellant pro se.

Dale Preston Kelberman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, M., for appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Clarence B. Ross, Sr. appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in his employment discrimination action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-16. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ross v. Garrett, CA-89-1957-H (D.Md. Mar. 16, 1990). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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