Thomas v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City

Fourth Circuit

Thomas v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City

552 F. App'x 248

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 2014

DocketNo. 13-1659

StatusPublished

This text of 552 F. App'x 248 (Thomas v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City) 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 v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City, 552 F. App'x 248 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Glenwood Thomas, Eric Banks, and Lanny Boddy (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City in Appellants’ employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, No. 1:1 l-cv-02479-JKB (D.Md. Apr. 17, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Glenwood Thomas, Eric Banks, and Lanny Boddy (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City in Appellants’ employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, No. 1:1 l-cv-02479-JKB (D.Md. Apr. 17, 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)

552 F. App'x 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-city-ca4-2014.