Bal Dev Enand v. Atlis Systems, Incorporated Atlis Federal Services, Incorporated

Fourth Circuit

Bal Dev Enand v. Atlis Systems, Incorporated Atlis Federal Services, Incorporated

23 F.3d 400, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18481, 1994 WL 175571

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 1994

Docket94-1040

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.3d 400 (Bal Dev Enand v. Atlis Systems, Incorporated Atlis Federal Services, Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bal Dev Enand v. Atlis Systems, Incorporated Atlis Federal Services, Incorporated, 23 F.3d 400, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18481, 1994 WL 175571 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

23 F.3d 400
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Bal Dev ENAND, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ATLIS SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; Atlis Federal Services,
Incorporated, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1040.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 1994.
Decided May 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-1141-K)

Bal Dev Enand, appellant pro se.

Glenn Marshal Cooper, Hope B. Eastman, Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg & Cooper, Bethesda, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Enand v. Atlis Systems, Inc., No. CA-92-1141-K (D. Md. Dec. 27, 1993). We deny Enand's motion for appointment of counsel and 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

*

We note that the district court inadvertently stated that Louis Hicks was older than Appellant. However, the court also specifically found that Tony Enriquez was older than Appellant and apparently confused the names of Appellant's former co-workers. The error had no effect on the outcome

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

23 F.3d 400
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Bal Dev ENAND, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ATLIS SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; Atlis Federal Services,
Incorporated, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1040.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 1994.
Decided May 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-1141-K)

Bal Dev Enand, appellant pro se.

Glenn Marshal Cooper, Hope B. Eastman, Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg & Cooper, Bethesda, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Enand v. Atlis Systems, Inc., No. CA-92-1141-K (D. Md. Dec. 27, 1993). We deny Enand's motion for appointment of counsel and 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

*

We note that the district court inadvertently stated that Louis Hicks was older than Appellant. However, the court also specifically found that Tony Enriquez was older than Appellant and apparently confused the names of Appellant's former co-workers. The error had no effect on the outcome

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.3d 400, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18481, 1994 WL 175571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bal-dev-enand-v-atlis-systems-incorporated-atlis-f-ca4-1994.