Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01143/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01143-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Bogart
Appellee
Francis P. Casto
Appellant
Department of Defense
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1143

FRANCIS P. CASTO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defense Intelligence Agency; MARK

BOGART, Defense Intelligence Agency,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

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

Judge. (1:06-cv-00933-GBL-BRP)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis P. Casto, Appellant Pro Se. R. Joseph Sher, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1143 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Francis P. Casto appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting

summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his employment

discrimination action brought under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2000). This court

reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.

Livingston v. Wyeth, Inc., 520 F.3d 344, 350 (4th Cir. 2008).

Summary judgment may only be granted when “there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Casto v.

Dep’t of Defense, No. 1:06-cv-00933-GBL-BRP (E.D. Va. Dec. 28,

2007). We deny Casto’s pending motions to expedite and to exclude

appendix. 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: 08-1143 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 2