Filed: Nov. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1786 ELBERT HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES ROCHE, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-923-2) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elbe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1786 ELBERT HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES ROCHE, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-923-2) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elber..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1786 ELBERT HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES ROCHE, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-923-2) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elbert Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Kent Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elbert Hicks appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his Title VII and age discrimination action as untimely. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hicks v. Roche, No. CA-02-923-2 (E.D. Va. filed May 23, 2003 & entered May 27, 2003). 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
