Thorne v. US Dept of Defense

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 9, 1998
Docket97-1121
StatusUnpublished

This text of Thorne v. US Dept of Defense (Thorne v. US Dept of Defense) 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
Thorne v. US Dept of Defense, (4th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1121

TRACY THORNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; WILLIAM J. PERRY, Secretary of Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-369)

Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Roy Hawkens, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Lieutenant Tracy Thorne appeals an order of the district court

upholding his involuntary discharge from the United States Navy on

account of his acknowledged homosexuality. 916 F. Supp. 1358 (E.D.

Va. 1996). He contends that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" plan, see 10 U.S.C. § 654 (1994), and implementing regulations, under which

he was discharged are unconstitutional. We have held to the con-

trary. See Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir.) (en banc),

cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3305, 65 U.S.L.W. 3309

(U.S. Oct. 21, 1996) (No. 96-1). We have considered and rejected

Thorne's remaining claims on appeal. The judgment of the district

court is therefore affirmed. We deny Thorne's motion for 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

Related

Thorne v. United States Department of Defense
916 F. Supp. 1358 (E.D. Virginia, 1996)
Thomasson v. Perry
80 F.3d 915 (Fourth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thorne v. US Dept of Defense, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorne-v-us-dept-of-defense-ca4-1998.