Louis J. Blazy v. R. James Woolsey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Fourth Circuit

Louis J. Blazy v. R. James Woolsey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

60 F.3d 820, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26161, 1995 WL 419015

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 1995

Docket94-2253

StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 820 (Louis J. Blazy v. R. James Woolsey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency) 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

Louis J. Blazy v. R. James Woolsey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, 60 F.3d 820, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26161, 1995 WL 419015 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

60 F.3d 820
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Louis J. BLAZY, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
R. James WOOLSEY, Director, Central Intelligence Agency,
Defendant--Appellee.

No. 94-2253.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 1995.
Decided: July 7, 1995.

Louis J. Blazy, appellant pro se. Dennis Edward Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his Title VII complaint, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-16 (West 1994). 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.* Blazy v. Woolsey, No. CA-94-438 (E.D.Va. Aug. 31, 1994). 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.

*

We also affirm the denial of Appellant's request for subpoena of witnesses

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

60 F.3d 820
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Louis J. BLAZY, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
R. James WOOLSEY, Director, Central Intelligence Agency,
Defendant--Appellee.

No. 94-2253.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 1995.
Decided: July 7, 1995.

Louis J. Blazy, appellant pro se. Dennis Edward Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his Title VII complaint, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-16 (West 1994). 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.* Blazy v. Woolsey, No. CA-94-438 (E.D.Va. Aug. 31, 1994). 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.

*

We also affirm the denial of Appellant's request for subpoena of witnesses

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 F.3d 820, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26161, 1995 WL 419015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-j-blazy-v-r-james-woolsey-director-central-i-ca4-1995.