Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Byrd v. Baltimore Sun Company, 03-2219 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2219 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 15, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2219 KARL G. BYRD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY; BALTIMORE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS UNION #31; ROBERT STALLINGS, President, Baltimore Graphic Communications Union #31, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 00-2677-JFM) Submitted: August 27, 2004 Decided: October 15, 2004 Before LUT
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2219 KARL G. BYRD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY; BALTIMORE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS UNION #31; ROBERT STALLINGS, President, Baltimore Graphic Communications Union #31, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 00-2677-JFM) Submitted: August 27, 2004 Decided: October 15, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Howard K. Kurman, Laura L. Hoppenstein, OFFIT, KURMAN, YUMKAS & DENICK, P.A., Owings Mills, Maryland; Charles Lamasa, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Karl G. Byrd, Sr., appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Byrd’s employment discrimination action and denying Byrd’s motion for a continuance and motion to strike materials submitted in support of summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Byrd v. Baltimore Sun Co., No. CA-00-2677-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 29, 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 -
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