Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1867 ORVILLE LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge; Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge; Theresa Carroll Buchanan, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-1610-A) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1867 ORVILLE LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge; Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge; Theresa Carroll Buchanan, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-1610-A) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDEN..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1867 ORVILLE LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge; Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge; Theresa Carroll Buchanan, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-1610-A) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orville Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Edward Szybala, As- sistant United States Attorney, Richard Parker, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Orville Lewis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order grant- ing summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging age discrimination in employment. 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. See Lewis v. Cohen, No. CA-98-1610-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 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