Illes P. Csorba v. Itt Electro-Optical Products Division

Fourth Circuit

Illes P. Csorba v. Itt Electro-Optical Products Division

73 F.3d 356, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40369, 1995 WL 758376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 1995

Docket95-1393

StatusPublished

This text of 73 F.3d 356 (Illes P. Csorba v. Itt Electro-Optical Products Division) 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

Illes P. Csorba v. Itt Electro-Optical Products Division, 73 F.3d 356, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40369, 1995 WL 758376 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

73 F.3d 356
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Illes P. CSORBA, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
ITT ELECTRO-OPTICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, Defendant--Appellee.

No. 95-1393.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995
Decided Dec. 26, 1995

Illes P. Csorba, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Douglas Henson, II, THE CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders that dismissed his claim that he was denied employment because of his national origin and granted summary judgment to the defendant as to his claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Csorba v. ITT-EOPD, No. CA-94-593-R (W.D.Va. Oct. 24, 1994 and Feb. 21, 1995). 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

73 F.3d 356
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Illes P. CSORBA, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
ITT ELECTRO-OPTICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, Defendant--Appellee.

No. 95-1393.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995
Decided Dec. 26, 1995

Illes P. Csorba, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Douglas Henson, II, THE CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders that dismissed his claim that he was denied employment because of his national origin and granted summary judgment to the defendant as to his claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Csorba v. ITT-EOPD, No. CA-94-593-R (W.D.Va. Oct. 24, 1994 and Feb. 21, 1995). 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)

73 F.3d 356, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40369, 1995 WL 758376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illes-p-csorba-v-itt-electro-optical-products-divi-ca4-1995.