Court Opinion

ID: 9953920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-23 21:02:00.488661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.632541
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6149      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6149

        RONALD A. DAVIS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        FRANK KENDALL, Secretary,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:21-cv-02593-TJS)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                      Decided: March 22, 2024

        Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronald A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6149      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Ronald A. Davis appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendant’s motion

        to dismiss several of Davis’ claims and granting summary judgment for Defendant on

        Davis’ remaining employment discrimination claim arising under Title VII of the Civil

        Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. * We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order.

        Davis v. Kendall, No. 8:21-cv-02593-TJS (D. Md. Dec. 14, 2022). 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

              *
                 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
        § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

                                                    2