Inko-Tariah v. Lappin

Fourth Circuit

Inko-Tariah v. Lappin

346 F. App'x 915

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 7, 2009·No. Nos. 07-6242, 09-6889·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Inko-Tariah appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and North Carolina’s Handicapped Persons Protection Act, N.C.G.S. § 168A-1, et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Inko-Tariah v. Lappin, No. 5:05-ct-00585-H (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 6, 2006 & entered Apr. 10, 2006; Jan. 30, 2007; Apr. 1, 2009). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Inko-Tariah appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and North Carolina’s Handicapped Persons Protection Act, N.C.G.S. § 168A-1, et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Inko-Tariah v. Lappin, No. 5:05-ct-00585-H (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 6, 2006 & entered Apr. 10, 2006; Jan. 30, 2007; Apr. 1, 2009). 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.

Inko-Tariah v. Lappin, 346 F. App'x 915 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

346 F. App'x 915 (Inko-Tariah v. Lappin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related