Pridgen v. Department of Public Works, Bureau of Highways

Fourth Circuit

Pridgen v. Department of Public Works, Bureau of Highways

401 F. App'x 824

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 2010

DocketNo. 09-2385

StatusPublished

This text of 401 F. App'x 824 (Pridgen v. Department of Public Works, Bureau of Highways) 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

Pridgen v. Department of Public Works, Bureau of Highways, 401 F. App'x 824 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip M. Pridgen appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pridgen v. Dep’t of Pub. Works, No. 1:08-cv-02826-WDO, 2009 WL 4726619 (D.Md. Dec. 1, 2009). We deny Pridgen’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot and 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Phillip M. Pridgen appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pridgen v. Dep’t of Pub. Works, No. 1:08-cv-02826-WDO, 2009 WL 4726619 (D.Md. Dec. 1, 2009). We deny Pridgen’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot and 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)

401 F. App'x 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pridgen-v-department-of-public-works-bureau-of-highways-ca4-2010.