Owens v. Montgomery County Government, Department of Health & Human Services

Fourth Circuit

Owens v. Montgomery County Government, Department of Health & Human Services

535 F. App'x 309

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1264

StatusPublished

This text of 535 F. App'x 309 (Owens v. Montgomery County Government, Department of Health & Human Services) 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

Owens v. Montgomery County Government, Department of Health & Human Services, 535 F. App'x 309 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[310]*310Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark R. Owens appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Owens’ claims of age and disability discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. Montgomery Cnty. Gov’t, No. 8:11-cv-01893-JFM, 2013 WL 398936 (D.Md. Jan. 31, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

[310]*310Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark R. Owens appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Owens’ claims of age and disability discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. Montgomery Cnty. Gov’t, No. 8:11-cv-01893-JFM, 2013 WL 398936 (D.Md. Jan. 31, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 F. App'x 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-montgomery-county-government-department-of-health-human-ca4-2013.