Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Beamon v. IBM, 95-1383 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1383 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1383 JAMES E. BEAMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Daniel E. Klein, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-2141-WN) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1383 JAMES E. BEAMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Daniel E. Klein, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-2141-WN) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Beamon, Appellant Pro Se. J. Hardin Marion, Lynn A. Kohen, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order that dis- missed his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1988) and his pendent state law claims and the magistrate judge's order that granted judgment as a matter of law to the Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) as to his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994). We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinion, and the magistrate judge's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and the magistrate judge. Beamon v. IBM, No. CA-92-2141-WN (D. Md. Apr. 2, 1993 & Feb. 28, 1995). 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. 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