Filed: Oct. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2636 ROBERT H. CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, Secretary of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-986-A) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 15, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2636 ROBERT H. CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, Secretary of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-986-A) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 15, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2636
ROBERT H. CLEGG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TOGO D. WEST, Secretary of the Army,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-97-986-A)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 15, 1999
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert H. Clegg, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Mercer Ray, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Brian Christopher
Corneilson, UNITED STATES ARMY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert H. Clegg appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the 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. See Clegg v. West, No. CA-97-986-
A (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 1997); see also West v. Gibson, ___ U.S. ___,
67 U.S.L.W. 4462, 4465 (June 14, 1999) (No. 98-238). 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