Filed: Oct. 23, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1558 THOMAS R. STORKAMP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00523-F) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1558 THOMAS R. STORKAMP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00523-F) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1558 THOMAS R. STORKAMP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00523-F) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas R. Storkamp, Appellant Pro Se. George Edward Bell Holding, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas R. Storkamp appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment on Storkamp’s action alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2000), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Storkamp v. Geren, No. 5:05-cv- 00523-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 8 & Apr. 9, 2008). 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