Washington v. Coastal International Security

Fourth Circuit

Washington v. Coastal International Security

633 F. App'x 186

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 2016

DocketNo. 15-1832

StatusPublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 186 (Washington v. Coastal International Security) 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

Washington v. Coastal International Security, 633 F. App'x 186 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

. Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Washington appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to transfer venue and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Coastal Int’l Sec., No. 8:14-cv-00331-DKC, 2015 WL 4396616 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2015; July 16, 2015). 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 Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

George Washington appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to transfer venue and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Coastal Int’l Sec., No. 8:14-cv-00331-DKC, 2015 WL 4396616 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2015; July 16, 2015). 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)

633 F. App'x 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-coastal-international-security-ca4-2016.