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)
99-2146•Howard Murray v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 2 PER CURIAM: Howard Murray appeals…
99-2146Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 18, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2146
HOWARD MURRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-98-1554-A)
Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 18, 2000
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Morris Kletzkin,
Mark D. Crawford, FRIEDLANDER, MISLER, FRIEDLANDER, SLOAN & HERZ,
Washington, D.C.; Edward S. Faggen, Joseph E. Kalet, METROPOLITAN
WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* Although the court’s orders are stamped “filed” on June 11
and July 28, 1999 respectively, they were entered on the district
court’s docket on June 15 and July 29, which are the effective
dates of the district court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2
PER CURIAM:
Howard Murray appeals the district court’s order that granted
summary judgment to his employer, Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, in his civil action in which he alleged employment
discrimination based upon race and the court’s subsequent order
that denied his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm both orders based upon the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See Murray v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth.,
No. CA-98-1554-A (E.D. Va. June 15 & July 29, 1999) *; see also JA
546-61 (district court’s bench ruling). 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.