Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Charles Rawlings v. City of Baltimore, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Rawlings appealed the district court's denial of his employment discrimination complaint against the City of Baltimore and other defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without oral argument, finding no reversible error. The court adopted the reasons stated by the district court in its February 15, 2012 order denying Rawlings' complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Charles Rawlings v. City of Baltimore, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    Charles Rawlings appealed the district court's denial of his employment discrimination complaint against the City of Baltimore and other defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without oral argument, finding no reversible error. The court adopted the reasons stated by the district court in its February 15, 2012 order denying Rawlings' complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-10-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1356

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Rawlings appealed the district court's denial of his employment discrimination complaint against the City of Baltimore and other defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without oral argument, finding no reversible error. The court adopted the reasons stated by the district court in its February 15, 2012 order denying Rawlings' complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    Charles Rawlings v. City of Baltimore, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Rawlings appealed the district court's denial of his employment discrimination complaint against the City of Baltimore and other defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without oral argument, finding no reversible error. The court adopted the reasons stated by the district court in its February 15, 2012 order denying Rawlings' complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-1356

    CHARLES RAWLINGS,
    Plaintiff _ Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL; DEPARTMENT OF
    PUBLIC WORKS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
    (1:12-cv-00446-BEL)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2012

    Decided:

    October 1, 2012

    Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Rawlings, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Rawlings

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    Rawlings v. Baltimore, No. 1:12-cv-00446-BEL (D. Md.

    court.

    Feb. 15, 2012).


    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

    You might also like