Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ardinger v. Washington County MD, 06-1255 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1255 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1255 LARRY ARDINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND; WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, Board of County Commissioners, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv- 01029-AMD) Submitted: January 5, 2007 Decided: February 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1255 LARRY ARDINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND; WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, Board of County Commissioners, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv- 01029-AMD) Submitted: January 5, 2007 Decided: February 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan R. Topazian, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Ardinger appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Washington County, Maryland, and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, on Ardinger’s sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ardinger v. Washington County, No. 1:05-cv-01029-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 23, 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 -
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