Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01036/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1036

HUGH TITO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ASHTON B. CARTER, The Honorable, Secretary, Department of 

Defense (Defense Logistics Agency),

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00453-REP)

Submitted: August 11, 2016 Decided: August 16, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugh Tito, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1036 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Hugh Tito appeals the district court’s order granting 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his civil 

action alleging age discrimination in a promotion decision and in 

setting his compensation while he held a temporary position. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court.* Tito v. Hagel, No. 3:14-cv-00453-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 

2015). 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

 * Although Defendant may not have complied with Local Rule 

7(E), district courts in the Eastern District of Virginia do not 

view a violation of that rule as fatal to a motion for summary 

judgment. See Hunt v. Calhoun Cnty. Bank, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 

720, 731 (E.D. Va. 2014) (“Failure to meet and confer does not 

automatically result in denial of a motion. Rather, sanctions for 

failure to meet and confer lie within a district court’s discretion 

and its inherent power to control its docket.” (citations 

omitted)).

Appeal: 16-1036 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 2