Filed: Nov. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1607 NORMAN L. NICHOLS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-3523-1-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Nichols,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1607 NORMAN L. NICHOLS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-3523-1-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Nichols, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1607 NORMAN L. NICHOLS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-3523-1-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Nichols, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Robert Stellman, Steven Bruce Schwartzman, HODES, ULMAN, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Norman L. Nichols, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Caroline County Board of Education on Nichols’s racial, gender, religion, and speech discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nichols v. Caroline County Bd. of Educ., No. CA-02-3523-1-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2004). 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 -