Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wagaman v. England, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Kerry Lee Wagaman appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy in a case alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appellate court reviewed the briefs and evidence and found that there were no genuine disputes of material facts and that the Secretary of the Navy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Wagaman's request for additional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-1686

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kerry Lee Wagaman appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy in a case alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appellate court reviewed the briefs and evidence and found that there were no genuine disputes of material facts and that the Secretary of the Navy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Wagaman's request for additional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views2 pages

    Wagaman v. England, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kerry Lee Wagaman appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy in a case alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible errors. The appellate court reviewed the briefs and evidence and found that there were no genuine disputes of material facts and that the Secretary of the Navy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Wagaman's request for additional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-1686

    KERRY LEE WAGAMAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
    (8:05-cv-02258-PJM)

    Submitted:

    May 11, 2007

    Decided:

    June 11, 2007

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, Jeffery C. Taylor, SNIDER &


    ASSOCIATES, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Rod J.
    Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kerry Lee Wagaman appeals the district courts order that
    granted summary judgment in favor of his former employer in his
    civil

    action

    in

    which

    he

    alleged

    violations

    of

    the

    Age

    Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act and


    retaliation.

    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

    Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the


    evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there
    are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving
    party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
    Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

    Anderson v.

    We have thoroughly

    reviewed the briefs and joint appendix, including the transcript of


    the

    summary

    judgment

    hearing,

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.*

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated on the record by the


    district court.

    See Wagaman v. England, No. 8:05-cv-02258-PJM (D.

    Md. May 17, 2006).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    Wagaman also challenges the district courts order denying


    his Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for a continuance to conduct
    discovery. We find no abuse of discretion in the district courts
    denial of Wagamans motion.
    - 2 -

    You might also like