Filed: Dec. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1729 MOSES JALLOH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:05-cv-02354-DKC) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Jalloh, Appellant Pro Se. Berna
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1729 MOSES JALLOH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:05-cv-02354-DKC) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Jalloh, Appellant Pro Se. Bernar..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1729 MOSES JALLOH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:05-cv-02354-DKC) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Jalloh, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard Phillip Jeweler, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Moses Jalloh appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Target Corporation in Jalloh’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jalloh v. Target Corp., No. 8:05-cv- 02354-DKC (D. Md. June 15, 2006). 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 -
