Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3168 WALTER NAILS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE ESPY, Secretary, Department of Agricul- ture; MICHAEL DUNN, Director, Farmers Home Administration, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 93-3646-DKC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3168 WALTER NAILS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE ESPY, Secretary, Department of Agricul- ture; MICHAEL DUNN, Director, Farmers Home Administration, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 93-3646-DKC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3168 WALTER NAILS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE ESPY, Secretary, Department of Agricul- ture; MICHAEL DUNN, Director, Farmers Home Administration, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 93-3646-DKC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Nails, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Jefferson Gurney, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief on his claims of employment discrimination. 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. Nails v. Espy, No. CA-93-3646-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 5, 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
