Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Henderson, 00-2395 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2395 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2395 ROLAND D. JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee, and MICHAEL HILL, Manager, Largo II, VMF; DAVID COOK, Manager, Largo II VMF; VIVIAN HAMPTON, EEO Investigator; ROSE CARTER, EEO Specialist; WELDON CARSON, Postmaster, Capitol Heights Branch; ROGER RUCKER, Supervisor, Capitol Heights Branch, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for th
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2395 ROLAND D. JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee, and MICHAEL HILL, Manager, Largo II, VMF; DAVID COOK, Manager, Largo II VMF; VIVIAN HAMPTON, EEO Investigator; ROSE CARTER, EEO Specialist; WELDON CARSON, Postmaster, Capitol Heights Branch; ROGER RUCKER, Supervisor, Capitol Heights Branch, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 2747-AMD) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland D. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tawana Elaine Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roland D. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Henderson, No. CA-00-2747-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 26, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer