Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc.

539 F. App'x 128

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1531

StatusPublished

This text of 539 F. App'x 128 (Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc.) 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

Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., 539 F. App'x 128 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kendall R. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., Smith’s former employer, in Smith’s action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., No. 8:11-cv-01301-PJM, 2013 WL 1316391 (D.Md. Mar. 28, 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kendall R. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., Smith’s former employer, in Smith’s action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., No. 8:11-cv-01301-PJM, 2013 WL 1316391 (D.Md. Mar. 28, 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)

539 F. App'x 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-verizon-washington-dc-inc-ca4-2013.