Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Strong v. Thompson, Secretary, 01-2274 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2274 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2274 DAVID M. STRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-3507-S) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2274 DAVID M. STRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-3507-S) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, Tawana Elaine Davis, Michael Anthony DiPietro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: David M. Strong appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Strong’s action claiming discrimination on the basis of race and violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and denying Strong’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Strong v. Thompson, Sec’y, Health & Human Servs., No. CA-00-3507-S (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2001; filed Sept. 14, 2001 & entered Oct. 18, 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 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