The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1096•Francis P. Saitta v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 2 PER CURIAM: Francis Saitta appeals…
00-1096Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 19, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1096
FRANCIS P. SAITTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99-
1971-MJG)
Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francis P. Saitta, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Jason Davis, Assistant
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* Although the district court’s order is dated January 6,
2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the
docket sheet on January 7, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order
was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the
effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
PER CURIAM:
Francis Saitta appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Morgan State University and dismissing his em-
ployment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Saitta
v. Morgan State University, No. CA-99-1971 (D. Md. Jan. 7, 2000).*
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.