Filed: Aug. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1193 SHERMAN HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-1183-A) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1193 SHERMAN HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-1183-A) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1193 SHERMAN HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-1183-A) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherman Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Jeri Kaylene Somers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Howard v. Widnall, No. CA-97-1183-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
