Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Timothy Tweed v. Matthew Whitaker, 18-1851 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1851 Visitors: 29
Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1851 TIMOTHY E. TWEED, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01417-LMB-JFA) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-1851


TIMOTHY E. TWEED,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01417-LMB-JFA)


Submitted: December 18, 2018                                Decided: December 20, 2018


Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy Everette Tweed, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Timothy Everette Tweed appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action

raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017), the Religious Freedom Restoration

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (2012), and state law. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Tweed v. Whitaker, No. 1:17-cv-01417-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. July 18,

2018). We deny the motions for sanctions and for judicial notice and 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

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