Filed: Apr. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1057 JAMES F. HOSKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00639-RDB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 24, 2013 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1057 JAMES F. HOSKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00639-RDB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 24, 2013 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1057 JAMES F. HOSKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00639-RDB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 24, 2013 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James F. Hoskins, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James F. Hoskins appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his complaint for race and disability discrimination and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoskins v. Napolitano, No. 1:12-cv-00639-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 28 & Dec. 10, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
