Filed: Oct. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1471 CHARLES RAWLINGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, Mayor and City Council Dept. of Public Works, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02077-BEL) Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1471 CHARLES RAWLINGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, Mayor and City Council Dept. of Public Works, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02077-BEL) Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1471 CHARLES RAWLINGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, Mayor and City Council Dept. of Public Works, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02077-BEL) Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Rawlings, Appellant Pro Se. Justin Sperance Conroy, Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Rawlings appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rawlings v. City of Baltimore, No. 1:10-cv-02077-BEL (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2011). 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
