Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01436/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01436-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-1436

WILLIAM SHERROD HENDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00032-RLW)

Submitted: September 10, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Sherrod Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Thomas

Tokarz, II, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1436 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

William Sherrod Henderson appeals the district court’s

order granting summary judgment in favor of Henrico County on

Henderson’s complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17

(2000), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 621-634 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000). This court reviews a district

court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128

S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

(1986). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Henderson v.

County of Henrico, No. 3:08-cv-00032-RLW (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 14,

2008; entered Apr. 15, 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

Appeal: 08-1436 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2