Filed: Oct. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2779 WILLIAM M. COYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; K. C. LEUNG; THOMAS ULRICH; CHARLES ATHAS; THOMAS PARR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 95-1175-CCB) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2779 WILLIAM M. COYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; K. C. LEUNG; THOMAS ULRICH; CHARLES ATHAS; THOMAS PARR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 95-1175-CCB) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2779 WILLIAM M. COYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; K. C. LEUNG; THOMAS ULRICH; CHARLES ATHAS; THOMAS PARR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 95-1175-CCB) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Coyne, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order entering summary judgment in this action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. Coyne v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. CA-95-1175-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 19, 1997). We 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
