Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2367 LESTER STOVALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 67; NOEL SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-143-PJM) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Stovall, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2367 LESTER STOVALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 67; NOEL SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-143-PJM) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Stovall, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2367 LESTER STOVALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 67; NOEL SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-143-PJM) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Stovall, Appellant Pro Se. Richard William Gibson, Marilyn Louise Baker, MOONEY, GREEN, BAKER, GIBSON & SAINDON, P.C., Wash- ington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lester Stovall appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 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. Stovall v. Teamsters Local Union 67, No. CA-00-143-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 3 & Sept. 21, 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