Filed: Apr. 01, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2172 ROGER L. SANFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee, and TOGO D. WEST, JR.; PHILLIP M. HAMME; RAYMOND BLANFORD; JULIAN BERRY, as employees in their own capacity with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2172 ROGER L. SANFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee, and TOGO D. WEST, JR.; PHILLIP M. HAMME; RAYMOND BLANFORD; JULIAN BERRY, as employees in their own capacity with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2172 ROGER L. SANFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee, and TOGO D. WEST, JR.; PHILLIP M. HAMME; RAYMOND BLANFORD; JULIAN BERRY, as employees in their own capacity with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-00-502-3) Submitted: February 27, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger L. Sanford, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Rixner Curry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roger L. Sanford appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and awarding summary judgment to the Defendant on Sanford’s Title VII discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sanford v. Principi, No. CA-00-502-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 26, 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