Filed: May 05, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2079 KIRK E. WEBSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Defendant – Appellee, and JOHN HILD; JEROME TOWNSEND; KEITH CODDINGTON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv-01107-RWT) Submitted: April 19, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2079 KIRK E. WEBSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Defendant – Appellee, and JOHN HILD; JEROME TOWNSEND; KEITH CODDINGTON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv-01107-RWT) Submitted: April 19, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 Be..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2079
KIRK E. WEBSTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary, United States Department of
Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JOHN HILD; JEROME TOWNSEND; KEITH CODDINGTON,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-01107-RWT)
Submitted: April 19, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kirk E. Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kirk E. Webster appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action claiming
violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2006) and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Webster v. Gates, No.
8:07-cv-01107-RWT (D. Md. July 22, 2009). 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
3