Case Name: Lynn HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Kathryn R. Repperger; Irene Morrison; Mark Karraker; USA Postal Group Europe; US Government; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-23
Citations: 114 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 04-1921
Parties: Lynn HOWARD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Kathryn R. Repperger; Irene Morrison; Mark Karraker; USA Postal Group Europe; US Government; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
Lynn HOWARD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Kathryn R. Repperger; Irene Morrison; Mark Karraker; USA Postal Group Europe; US Government; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-1921.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided Nov. 23, 2004.
Lynn Howard, Appellant pro se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Dennis Edward Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Matthew Paul Ruzicka, United States Army, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lynn Howard appeals the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Howard v. United States Army, No. CA-03-1368-1 (E.D. Va. filed June 7 & entered June 9, 2004). We deny the motion filed by attorney George R. Royer to appear on Howard's behalf as counsel pro hac vice as moot. 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