Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1085 MATTA ZEINALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL PENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01599-MJG) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: November 29, 2017 Before AGEE, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris E. Fischer, LAW OFFICE OF MORRIS E. FI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1085 MATTA ZEINALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL PENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01599-MJG) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: November 29, 2017 Before AGEE, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris E. Fischer, LAW OFFICE OF MORRIS E. FIS..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1085 MATTA ZEINALI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL PENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01599-MJG) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: November 29, 2017 Before AGEE, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris E. Fischer, LAW OFFICE OF MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matta Zeinali appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Zeinali’s employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Zeinali v. Pense, No. 1:15-cv-01599-MJG (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2016). 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
