Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Curtis v. MD Natl Capital Park, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendant in a racial discrimination case. The plaintiff, Anthony Curtis, had filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling, agreeing with its reasoning that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The court dispensed with oral arguments, believing the case was adequately addressed by the written submissions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-05-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-1300

    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 granting of summary judgment to the defendant in a racial discrimination case. The plaintiff, Anthony Curtis, had filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling, agreeing with its reasoning that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The court dispensed with oral arguments, believing the case was adequately addressed by the written submissions.

    Copyright:

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

    Curtis v. MD Natl Capital Park, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendant in a racial discrimination case. The plaintiff, Anthony Curtis, had filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling, agreeing with its reasoning that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The court dispensed with oral arguments, believing the case was adequately addressed by the written submissions.

    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. 99-1300

    ANTHONY CURTIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING
    COMMISSION,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-97-4266-AW)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 1999

    Decided:

    May 28, 1999

    Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Anthony Curtis, Silver Spring, Maryland, Appellant Pro Se. William
    Charles Dickerson, MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING
    COMMISSION, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Curtis appeals the district courts order granting Defendant summary judgment in Curtiss racial discrimination action
    filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
    district court. See Curtis v. Maryland Natl Capital Park, No. CA97-4266-AW (D. Md. Feb. 2, 1999).*

    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

    The district court order was filed January 29, 1999.


    2

    You might also like