Clarence Prather-El v. Virginia Linens Company, and Bob Baker, Lee Gwaulney, Roy Hill, Clay Sherman

Fourth Circuit

Clarence Prather-El v. Virginia Linens Company, and Bob Baker, Lee Gwaulney, Roy Hill, Clay Sherman

16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7294, 1994 WL 4676

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 6, 1994·No. 93-1795·Published

Opinion

16 F.3d 411
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Clarence PRATHER-EL, Defendant Appellee,
v.
VIRGINIA LINENS COMPANY,
and
Bob BAKER, Lee Gwaulney, Roy Hill, Clay Sherman, Defendants.

No. 93-1795.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1993.
Jan. 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederick N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-92-1755-S)

Clarence Prather-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Henry Morris, Jr., Allen G. Siegel, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

D.Md.

Affirmed.

Before PHILLIPS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e (West 1981 & Supp.1993) and 42 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985 (West 1981 & Supp.1993). 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. Prather-El v. Virginia Linens Co., No. CA-92-1755-S (D. Md. June 15, 1993). 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

16 F.3d 411
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Clarence PRATHER-EL, Defendant Appellee,
v.
VIRGINIA LINENS COMPANY,
and
Bob BAKER, Lee Gwaulney, Roy Hill, Clay Sherman, Defendants.

No. 93-1795.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1993.
Jan. 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederick N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-92-1755-S)

Clarence Prather-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Henry Morris, Jr., Allen G. Siegel, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

D.Md.

Affirmed.

Before PHILLIPS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e (West 1981 & Supp.1993) and 42 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985 (West 1981 & Supp.1993). 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. Prather-El v. Virginia Linens Co., No. CA-92-1755-S (D. Md. June 15, 1993). 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

Clarence Prather-El v. Virginia Linens Company, and Bob Baker, Lee Gwaulney, Roy Hill, Clay Sherman, 16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7294, 1994 WL 4676 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

16 F.3d 411 (Clarence Prather-El v. Virginia Linens Company, and Bob Baker, Lee Gwaulney, Roy Hill, Clay Sherman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.