Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Garland v. Levering, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ernest Levering and David P. Hartman on Frank J. Garland's claim of race discrimination under Title VII. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, that Garland failed to establish a claim of race discrimination under Title VII against Levering and Hartman. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1100

    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 Ernest Levering and David P. Hartman on Frank J. Garland's claim of race discrimination under Title VII. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, that Garland failed to establish a claim of race discrimination under Title VII against Levering and Hartman. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Garland v. Levering, 4th Cir. (2010)

    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 Ernest Levering and David P. Hartman on Frank J. Garland's claim of race discrimination under Title VII. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, that Garland failed to establish a claim of race discrimination under Title VII against Levering and Hartman. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 10-1100

    FRANK J. GARLAND,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ERNEST LEVERING,
    DAVID HARTMAN,

    c/o

    Balto

    Stevedore;

    DAVID

    P.

    HARTMAN;

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
    (1:09-cv-00941-RDB)

    Submitted:

    May 20, 2010

    Decided:

    May 26, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Frank J. Garland, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Collins, MICHAEL


    J. COLLINS, PC, Highland, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Frank J. Garland appeals the district courts order
    granting

    summary

    judgment

    to

    Ernest

    Levering

    and

    David

    P.

    Hartman on Garlands claim of race discrimination under Title


    VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
    2000e, et seq. (2006).
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    Garland v. Levering, No. 1:09-cv-00941-

    RDB (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2010).

    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

    You might also like