Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Linwood J. Hardy v. City of Richmond Fire Bureau, and Stuart Circle Hospital, Hand Management Specialists, 91-1733 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-1733 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 20, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 941 F.2d 1206 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Linwood J. HARDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHMOND FIRE BUREAU, Defendant-Appellee, and Stuart Circle Hospital, Hand Management Specialists, Defendants. No. 91-1733. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitt
More

941 F.2d 1206

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Linwood J. HARDY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND FIRE BUREAU, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Stuart Circle Hospital, Hand Management Specialists, Defendants.

No. 91-1733.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 8, 1991.
Decided Aug. 20, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-89-626-R)

Linwood J. Hardy, appellant pro se.

Norman Bernard Sales, City Attorney's Office, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Linwood J. Hardy appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination suit. 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. Hardy v. City of Richmond, CA-89-626-R (E.D.Va. Mar. 20, 1991). 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