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)
06-1351•Anthony T. Walton v. Guidant Sales Corporation
06-1351Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 17, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1351
ANTHONY T. WALTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv-
00296-AMD)
Submitted: September 8, 2006 Decided: October 17, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony T. Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn A. Cline, BALLARD,
SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Lisa Ann
Cooney, Steven William Suflas, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,
LLP, Voorhees, New Jersey, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Anthony T. Walton appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his claims of employment discrimination for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Walton v. Guidant Sales Corp.,
No. 1:05-cv-00296-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2006). We deny Walton’s
motion for admission of documents. 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.