Filed: Mar. 04, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2477 GENE M. MUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD L. EVANS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-181) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2477 GENE M. MUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD L. EVANS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-181) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2477 GENE M. MUNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD L. EVANS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-181) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gene M. Munson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gene M. Munson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Munson v. Evans, No. CA-04-181 (E.D. Va. Sept. 27, 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 -
