Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Israel v. Cerjan, 01-1907 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1907 Visitors: 25
Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1907 NOAH SOLOMON ISRAEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL CERJAN, President, Regent University; W. GEORGE SELIG, Provost, Regent University; JOHN MULFORD, Dean, School of Business; MIKE GRAY, Academic Advisor, School of Business; JOE DEBROTA, Assistant Director, Office of Central Financial Aid, Regent University; REGENT UNIVERSITY; MICHAEL ASH, Director, Student Services; CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK, INCORPORATED (CBN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1907 NOAH SOLOMON ISRAEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL CERJAN, President, Regent University; W. GEORGE SELIG, Provost, Regent University; JOHN MULFORD, Dean, School of Business; MIKE GRAY, Academic Advisor, School of Business; JOE DEBROTA, Assistant Director, Office of Central Financial Aid, Regent University; REGENT UNIVERSITY; MICHAEL ASH, Director, Student Services; CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK, INCORPORATED (CBN); REGENT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-00-457-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Noah Solomon Israel, Appellant Pro Se. John David Radd, Jeffrey Scott Kerr, Lavonda Nicole Graham, HUFF, POOLE & MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Noah Solomon Israel appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his discrimination action. 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. Israel v. Cerjan, No. CA-00-457-2 (E.D. Va. June 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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