Fleming v. Potter

Fourth Circuit

Fleming v. Potter

158 F. App'x 456

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 21, 2005·No. No. 05-1802·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Marion Fleming appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000) (“ADEA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 797 (2000) (the “Rehabilitation Act”). We deny Fleming leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion. See Fleming v. Potter, No. CA-04-444-2 (E.D. Va. filed May 18, 2005; entered May 19, 2005). 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.

DISMISSED

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

PER CURIAM:

Marion Fleming appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000) (“ADEA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 797 (2000) (the “Rehabilitation Act”). We deny Fleming leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion. See Fleming v. Potter, No. CA-04-444-2 (E.D. Va. filed May 18, 2005; entered May 19, 2005). 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.

DISMISSED

Fleming v. Potter, 158 F. App'x 456 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

158 F. App'x 456 (Fleming v. Potter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related