Court Opinion

ID: 9929747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:01:02.674005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:20.266543
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1528      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1528

        ERIC KATZ,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00554-TSE-JFA)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric Katz, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth A. Spavins, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1528         Doc: 27      Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric Katz appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment

        on Katz’s discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act

        of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l, and on his constructive discharge claim.

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

        district court’s order. Katz v. Garland, No. 1:20-cv-00554-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Mar. 16,

        2023). 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

                                                    2