Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clegg v. West, 97-2636 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2636 Visitors: 3
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2636 ROBERT H. CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, Secretary of the Army, Defendant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 Affirmed by unpublished per cur
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer