Filed: Dec. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2100 ANGEL F. CORDERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RODNEY E. SLATER, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3019-2-18AJ, CA-99-2580-2-18AJ) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2100 ANGEL F. CORDERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RODNEY E. SLATER, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3019-2-18AJ, CA-99-2580-2-18AJ) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2100 ANGEL F. CORDERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RODNEY E. SLATER, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3019-2-18AJ, CA-99-2580-2-18AJ) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angel F. Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Angel F. Cordero appeals the district court’s orders and judg- ment granting summary judgment to the Secretary of Transportation and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cordero v. Slater, Nos. CA-99-3019-2-18AJ; CA-99-2580-2-18AJ (D.S.C. July 28 & Aug. 15, 2000). 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