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)
14-1326•Eric Hemphill v. Aramark Corporation; Aramark Campus Services LLC
14-1326Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 20, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1326
ERIC HEMPHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARAMARK CORPORATION; ARAMARK CAMPUS SERVICES LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ARAMARK, INC.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01584-ELH)
Submitted: August 7, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Kaiser H. Chowdhry, William J.
Delany, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Hemphill appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his
employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Hemphill v. Aramark
Corp., No. 1:12-cv-01584-ELH (D. Md. filed Mar. 25, 2014;
entered Mar. 26, 2014). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.