Michael W. Burton v. Amcor Flexibles

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1288
MICHAEL W. BURTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMCOR FLEXIBLES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:06-cv-01289-WDQ)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Winfield Hahn,
SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

*The district court granted Defendant summary judgment on all
of Burton’s claims except his Title VII retaliatory discharge
claim, which was presented to a jury. After the jury returned a
verdict in Defendant’s favor on the retaliation claim, the district
court entered final judgment in Defendant’s favor.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael W. Burton appeals the district court’s order
entering final judgment against him on his discrimination,
harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2000) (“Title VII”), and his discrimination claims under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 621 to 634 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2000). * We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. See Burton v. Amcor Flexibles, No. 1:06-cv-
01289-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2008). 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 --