Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kendall Smith v. EEOC, 13-1117 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1117 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1117 KENDALL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. (EEOC) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee, and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA (CWA) - District 2; CWA LOCAL 2336; CWA AFL-CIO; CLC; VERIZON WASHINGTON DC INC.; VERIZON MARYLAND INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB), MD & DC; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL); REED SMITH LLP, Defendants. Appeal from the United States Distri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1117 KENDALL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. (EEOC) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee, and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA (CWA) - District 2; CWA LOCAL 2336; CWA AFL-CIO; CLC; VERIZON WASHINGTON DC INC.; VERIZON MARYLAND INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB), MD & DC; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL); REED SMITH LLP, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:12-cv-00027-AW) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 3, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kendall Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Gary John Hozempa, Tracy Hudson Spicer, U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, DC, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kendall Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing Smith’s civil complaint against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, No. 8:12-cv-00027-AW (D. Md. Dec. 26, 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer