Thomas Coyne v. Omnicare, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Thomas Coyne v. Omnicare, Inc.

594 F. App'x 144

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 24, 2015

Docket14-2026

StatusUnpublished

This text of 594 F. App'x 144 (Thomas Coyne v. Omnicare, 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

Thomas Coyne v. Omnicare, Inc., 594 F. App'x 144 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Coyne appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Coyne’s claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012), and the Maryland Flexible Leave Act (“MFLA”), Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-802 (LexisNexis 2014 Supp.). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Coyne’s FMLA claim for the reasons *145 stated by the district court. Coyne v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01225-CCB, 2014 WL 4384629 (D.Md. Sept. 3, 2014). We further affirm the grant of summary judgment on Coyne’s MFLA claim because Coyne did not commence taking leave prior to his termination. See Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-802(f); Gainsburg v. Steben & Co., Inc., 519 Fed.Appx. 199, 200 (4th Cir .2013) (No. 12-1476) (“[T]he MFLA applies only to an employee who ‘has taken leave,’ ... [t]he clear language of the statute precludes any ¿vague, atextual argument that requesting leave or providing notice of leave — rather than actually taking it by spending time away from work — constitutes protected activity.”). We deny Coyne’s motion to appoint counsel and 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Thomas Coyne appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Coyne’s claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012), and the Maryland Flexible Leave Act (“MFLA”), Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-802 (LexisNexis 2014 Supp.). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Coyne’s FMLA claim for the reasons *145 stated by the district court. Coyne v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01225-CCB, 2014 WL 4384629 (D.Md. Sept. 3, 2014). We further affirm the grant of summary judgment on Coyne’s MFLA claim because Coyne did not commence taking leave prior to his termination. See Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-802(f); Gainsburg v. Steben & Co., Inc., 519 Fed.Appx. 199, 200 (4th Cir .2013) (No. 12-1476) (“[T]he MFLA applies only to an employee who ‘has taken leave,’ ... [t]he clear language of the statute precludes any ¿vague, atextual argument that requesting leave or providing notice of leave — rather than actually taking it by spending time away from work — constitutes protected activity.”). We deny Coyne’s motion to appoint counsel and 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)

594 F. App'x 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-coyne-v-omnicare-inc-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack