Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sofidiya v. Runyon, 95-3106 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3106 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3106 MICHAEL S. SOFIDIYA, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-527-A) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3106 MICHAEL S. SOFIDIYA, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-527-A) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Sofidiya, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Theresa Carroll Buchanan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his complaint against his former employer brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sofidiya v. Runyon, No. CA-95-527-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and dis- pense 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