Filed: Feb. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1816 MICHAEL W. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, United States Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-1348-DKC) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1816 MICHAEL W. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, United States Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-1348-DKC) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1816 MICHAEL W. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, United States Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-1348-DKC) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Diamond, WALDMAN & DIAMOND, CHARTERED, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Paul E. Soeffing, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael W. Walker appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Walker v. Henderson, No. CA-01-1348-DKC (D. Md. June 19, 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