Case Name: Elliott HAINES, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick A. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-26
Citations: 538 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 12-2325
Parties: Elliott HAINES, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick A. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
Elliott HAINES, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick A. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-2325.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2013.
Elliott Haines, III, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elliott Haines, III, appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Haines' retaliation-based hostile work environment claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and his gender discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haines v. Donahoe, No. 1:10-cv-00293-ELH, 2012 WL 3595965 (D.Md. filed Aug. 20, 2012; entered Aug. 21, 2012). We further deny Haines' motion for appointment of counsel and deny as moot his motion to place this appeal in abeyance for the Supreme Court's decision in Vance v. Ball State Univ., — U.S.—, 133 S.Ct. 2434, 186 L.Ed.2d 565 (2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.