Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1066 MARTIN MARINOFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS DUNCAN, Executive Officer, Montgomery County Government, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-2010-JFM) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1066 MARTIN MARINOFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS DUNCAN, Executive Officer, Montgomery County Government, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-2010-JFM) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1066 MARTIN MARINOFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS DUNCAN, Executive Officer, Montgomery County Government, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-2010-JFM) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Marinoff, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assis- tant County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Martin Marinoff appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Marinoff’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Marinoff v. Duncan, No. CA-00-2010-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 7, 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
