Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ramsey v. Toyota Motor Sales, 95-3141 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3141 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3141 CLINT A. RAMSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INCORPORATED; CENTRAL ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INCOR- PORATED; ROBERT SKELTON; RANDY PFLUGHAUPT; STEVE NIVEN, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 94-1552-CCB) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDEN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3141 CLINT A. RAMSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INCORPORATED; CENTRAL ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INCOR- PORATED; ROBERT SKELTON; RANDY PFLUGHAUPT; STEVE NIVEN, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 94-1552-CCB) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clint A. Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Jeffrey Magid, WHITE- FORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in an employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reason- ing of the district court. Ramsey v. Toyota Motor Sales, No. CA-94- 1552-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 7, 1995). Additionally, we deny the Appel- lees' motion to strike the Appellant's memorandum in opposition to Appellees' informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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