Filed: Dec. 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2354 STUART J. BYCZYNSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-1554-WMN) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2354 STUART J. BYCZYNSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-1554-WMN) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2354 STUART J. BYCZYNSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-1554-WMN) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart J. Byczynski, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, George Levi Russell, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his claims of discrimination on the basis of national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994). 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. Byczynski v. Apfel, No. CA-96-1554-WMN (D. Md. August 19, 1998). 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