Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01988/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01988-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-1988

JOHNNY D. THORNTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-2097

JOHNNY D. THORNTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00397-GBL)

Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008

Appeal: 07-1988 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher D. Vaughn, MELVILLE JOHNSON, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia,

for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Dennis C.

Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1988 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
*The multiple appeals result from the fact that Thornton and

his counsel each filed a separate notice of appeal from the final

order of the district court.

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals,* Johnny D. Thornton

appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his

former employer in his action alleging violations of § 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2000), and Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17

(2000). This court reviews a district court’s order granting

summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and 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). With these standards in mind, we have thoroughly reviewed

the briefs and the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

Thornton v. Mukasey, No. 1:06-cv-00397-GBL (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 27,

2007; entered Aug. 29, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

Appeal: 07-1988 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/21/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

 AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-1988 Doc: 37 Filed: 07/21/2008 Pg: 4 of 4