Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lipscomb v. Clearmont Constr, 96-1026 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1026 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1026 EVERETT LIPSCOMB, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLEARMONT CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COM- PANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2590-AW) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1026 EVERETT LIPSCOMB, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLEARMONT CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COM- PANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2590-AW) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everett Lipscomb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John William Kyle, Warren Malcolm Davison, LITTLER, MENDELSON, FASTIFF & TICHY, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 Americans with Disabili- ties Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995). 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. Lipscomb v. Clearmont Constr. & Dev. Co., No. CA-95-2590-AW (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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