Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1100 FRANK J. GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERNEST LEVERING, c/o Balto Stevedore; DAVID P. HARTMAN; DAVID HARTMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00941-RDB) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1100 FRANK J. GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERNEST LEVERING, c/o Balto Stevedore; DAVID P. HARTMAN; DAVID HARTMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00941-RDB) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1100
FRANK J. GARLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERNEST LEVERING, c/o Balto Stevedore; DAVID P. HARTMAN;
DAVID HARTMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00941-RDB)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank J. Garland, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Collins, MICHAEL
J. COLLINS, PC, Highland, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank J. Garland appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Ernest Levering and David P.
Hartman on Garland’s claim of race discrimination under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq. (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Garland v. Levering, No. 1:09-cv-00941-
RDB (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2010). 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