Case Name: John L. BOYLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARFORD COUNTY; Howard Walter; Richard Aiello; Colburn Dorsey; Elwood Dehaven; Gary Sohl; Joseph P. Meadows, Defendants-Appellees, and State of Maryland, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-25
Citations: 120 F. App'x 450
Docket Number: No. 04-1671
Parties: John L. BOYLE, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HARFORD COUNTY; Howard Walter; Richard Aiello; Colburn Dorsey; Elwood Dehaven; Gary Sohl; Joseph P. Meadows, Defendants—Appellees, and State of Maryland, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 450–451

Head Matter:
John L. BOYLE, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HARFORD COUNTY; Howard Walter; Richard Aiello; Colburn Dorsey; Elwood Dehaven; Gary Sohl; Joseph P. Meadows, Defendants—Appellees, and State of Maryland, Defendant.
No. 04-1671.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 12, 2005.
Decided Jan. 25, 2005.
Howard J. Needle, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Cynthia G. Peltzman, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, Robert S. McCord, County Attorney, Philip S. Roberts, Deborah S. Duvall, Senior Assistant County Attorneys, Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John L. Boyle, Jr. appeals the district court's order summarily dismissing his claims for religious discrimination and retaliation for whistle blowing, based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000); the First Amendment; and the Public Policy of the State of Maryland; and dismissing the remaining state law claims without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order on the reasoning of the district court. See Boyle v. Harford County, No. CA-01-3200-BEL (D.Md. Apr. 1, 2004). 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