Filed: Feb. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2486 JOHN J. JOSWICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 98-3041-PJM) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2486 JOHN J. JOSWICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 98-3041-PJM) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2486 JOHN J. JOSWICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 98-3041-PJM) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Joswick, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie Floyd Portner, Patrick A. Birck, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John L. Joswick appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer in his employment discrim- ination action filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999).* We have re- viewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Joswick v. Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab., No. CA-98-3041-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1999). We dis- pense 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 * The proceedings in this action were conducted by a magis- trate judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2