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)
10-1100•Frank J. Garland v. Ernest Levering, c/o Balto Stevedore; DAVID P. HARTMAN; DAVID HARTMAN
10-1100Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 26, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1100
FRANK J. GARLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERNEST LEVERING, c/o Balto Stevedore; DAVID P. HARTMAN;
DAVID HARTMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00941-RDB)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank J. Garland, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Collins, MICHAEL
J. COLLINS, PC, Highland, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Frank J. Garland appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Ernest Levering and David P.
Hartman on Garland’s claim of race discrimination under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq. (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Garland v. Levering, No. 1:09-cv-00941-
RDB (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2010). 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.