Filed: Sep. 24, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1675 CHARLES A. GULDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1519) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1675 CHARLES A. GULDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1519) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1675 CHARLES A. GULDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1519) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Gulden, Appellant Pro Se. Francis Patrick King, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles A. Gulden appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 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 Gulden v. White, No. CA-01-1519 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2002). 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
