Filed: Jul. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1053 KELVIN J. HURDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF EN- VIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-336) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 16, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ke
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1053 KELVIN J. HURDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF EN- VIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-336) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 16, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1053 KELVIN J. HURDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF EN- VIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-336) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 16, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Hurdle, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Hurdle seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment against him on his Title VII claims. See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the ma- terials submitted by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hurdle v. Virginia, No. CA-00-336 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2001). We deny Hurdle’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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