Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Obeya v. British School, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the British School of Washington in a case brought by Michael U. Obeya. Obeya alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and tortious interference with contract. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's reasoning and affirmed based on the facts and legal arguments presented below. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-08-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1204

    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 grant of summary judgment in favor of the British School of Washington in a case brought by Michael U. Obeya. Obeya alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and tortious interference with contract. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's reasoning and affirmed based on the facts and legal arguments presented below. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Obeya v. British School, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the British School of Washington in a case brought by Michael U. Obeya. Obeya alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and tortious interference with contract. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's reasoning and affirmed based on the facts and legal arguments presented below. The Court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-1204

    MICHAEL U. OBEYA, Individually and t/a Myke


    Services,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BRITISH SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
    (CA-01-3158-MJG)

    Submitted:

    July 21, 2004

    Decided:

    August 9, 2004

    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Fatai A. Suleman, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for
    Appellant.
    Alan M. Schwartz, Columbia, Maryland; Geoffrey H.
    Genth, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael

    U.

    Obeya

    appeals

    district

    court

    judgment

    granting summary judgment to the British School of Washington


    (School) and dismissing his complaint raising allegations under
    42 U.S.C. 1981 (2000) and charging the School with tortious
    interference with contract and unjust enrichment.*

    Finding no

    error, we affirm.
    We

    review

    grant

    of

    summary

    judgment

    de

    novo.

    Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
    Cir. 1988).

    Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no

    genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to


    judgment as a matter of law.

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex

    Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986).

    All factual

    evidence, and all justifiable inferences drawn therefrom, must be


    viewed

    in

    Anderson

    the
    v.

    light

    Liberty

    most

    favorable

    Lobby,

    Inc.,

    to

    477

    the
    U.S.

    non-moving
    242,

    255

    party.
    (1986).

    However, the non-moving party may not rely upon mere allegations.
    Rather, supported by affidavits or other verified evidence, his
    response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
    genuine issue for trial.

    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex

    Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Cray Communications,

    Obeya does not challenge the district courts early dismissal


    of the unjust enrichment claim.
    - 2 -

    Inc. v. Novatel Computer Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 393-94 (4th Cir.
    1994).
    We affirm the judgment on the reasoning of the district
    court.

    See Obeya v. British Sch. of Wash., No. CA-01-3158-MJG (D.

    Md. Jan. 7, 2004).


    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like