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)
00-1111•Charles T. Conaway v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center
00-1111Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 28, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1111
CHARLES T. CONAWAY; ANTHONY JOSEPH SULHOFF;
BARRY CANNON; FRED H. TROUT, JR.; GEORGE F.
GOSLEE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
PENINSULA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
99-193-S)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 28, 2000
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Love, Baltimore, Maryland; W. Michael Pierson, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants. Bruce S. Harrison, Patrick M.
Pilachowski, Eric Hemmendinger, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, L.L.P., Bal-
timore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Peninsula Regional Medical Center on their employment
discrimination/retaliation claims. We have reviewed the record and
the parties’ briefs, as well as the district court’s opinion, and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Conaway v. Peninsula Regional Medical Ctr.,
No. CA-99-193-S (D. Md. Dec. 22, 1999). We dispense with 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.