Filed: Sep. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1881 MICHAEL R. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES G. ROCHE, Secretary of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98- 1273-DKC) Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1881 MICHAEL R. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES G. ROCHE, Secretary of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98- 1273-DKC) Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1881 MICHAEL R. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES G. ROCHE, Secretary of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98- 1273-DKC) Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., Michael Anthony DePietro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Michael R. Ward appeals from the magistrate judge’s* order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magis- trate judge. Ward v. Peters, No. CA-98-1273-DKC (D. Md. May 29, 2001). 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2