Bostron v. Apfel

Fourth Circuit

Bostron v. Apfel

2 F. App'x 235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

DocketNo. 00-2238

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. App'x 235 (Bostron v. Apfel) 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

Bostron v. Apfel, 2 F. App'x 235 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael H. Bostron appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law to the Commissioner in Bostron’s civil action in which he alleged employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bostron v. Apfel, 104 F.Supp.2d 548 (D.Md.2000). 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael H. Bostron appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law to the Commissioner in Bostron’s civil action in which he alleged employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bostron v. Apfel, 104 F.Supp.2d 548 (D.Md.2000). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. App'x 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bostron-v-apfel-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack