Robinson v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

Fourth Circuit

Robinson v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

382 F. App'x 265

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 8, 2010·No. No. 08-2250·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Christopher Robinson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his claim under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2006), as well as his claims for wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, and denying his motion to stay the district court proceedings pending discovery and for issuance of a scheduling order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motions for oral argument and to refer “special matters” to the United States Attorney General, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), and affirm the district court’s judgment. See Robinson v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 1:07-cv-02102-BEL (D.Md. Sept. 25, 2008). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Brian Christopher Robinson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his claim under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2006), as well as his claims for wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, and denying his motion to stay the district court proceedings pending discovery and for issuance of a scheduling order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motions for oral argument and to refer “special matters” to the United States Attorney General, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), and affirm the district court’s judgment. See Robinson v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 1:07-cv-02102-BEL (D.Md. Sept. 25, 2008). 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.

Robinson v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 382 F. App'x 265 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

382 F. App'x 265 (Robinson v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related