Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hahn v. Williamsburg/James City County, 03-2040 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2040 Visitors: 31
Filed: Apr. 05, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2040 PETER HAHN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAMSBURG/JAMES CITY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-156) Submitted: March 15, 2004 Decided: April 5, 2004 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan H. Walker,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2040 PETER HAHN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAMSBURG/JAMES CITY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-156) Submitted: March 15, 2004 Decided: April 5, 2004 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan H. Walker, MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Nicolas R. Foster, John R. Porter, III, CARR & PORTER, L.L.C., Portsmouth, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Peter Hahn appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hahn v. Williamsburg/James City County Pub. Sch., No. CA-02-156 (E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 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