Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shah v. Kukes, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims in Syed Z. Shah's employment discrimination case. The district court denied Shah's complaint of employment discrimination based on race, color, and national origin filed under Title VII. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1124

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims in Syed Z. Shah's employment discrimination case. The district court denied Shah's complaint of employment discrimination based on race, color, and national origin filed under Title VII. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Shah v. Kukes, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims in Syed Z. Shah's employment discrimination case. The district court denied Shah's complaint of employment discrimination based on race, color, and national origin filed under Title VII. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-1124

    SYED Z. SHAH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    TALLAT SHAH, wife,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    SCOTT KUKES, LTC; DAVID LAMM, COL; PAUL T.
    DAVIS, LTC; GREGORY ALLEN ARMSTRONG, Special
    Agent; KEVIN BENEFIELD, CW2,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-390-1)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 2005

    Decided:

    May 19, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Syed Z. Shah, Appellant Pro Se.


    Richard Parker, Ralph Andrew
    Price, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Syed Z. Shah appeals the district courts order granting
    Defendants motion to dismiss in part, granting Defendants motion
    for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims, and
    denying Shahs complaint of employment discrimination based on
    race, color, and national origin filed pursuant to Title VII of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000).
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    See Shah v. Kukes, No. CA-04-390-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21,

    2004).

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like