Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1630 RAFAEL YANUSHEVSKY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, College Park, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2070-AMD) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Yanushevsky, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1630 RAFAEL YANUSHEVSKY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, College Park, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2070-AMD) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Yanushevsky, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1630 RAFAEL YANUSHEVSKY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, College Park, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2070-AMD) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Yanushevsky, Appellant Pro Se. Jacqueline Wei Mintz, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rafael Yanushevsky appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in his civil action in which he asserted discriminatory failure to hire claims. 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. See Yanushevsky v. University of Maryland, No. CA- 98-2070-AMD (D. Md. Apr. 5, 1999). 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
