Filed: Mar. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2077 WILLIE J. BUCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 96-2632-S) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Buck, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2077 WILLIE J. BUCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 96-2632-S) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Buck, Appellant Pro Se. P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2077 WILLIE J. BUCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 96-2632-S) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Buck, Appellant Pro Se. Pamila Junette Brown, Michael P. Kenney, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Buck v. State Highway Admin., No. CA-96-2632-S (D. Md. July 14, 1997). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
