Court Opinion

ID: 9403976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:01:03.977118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.621444
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2239      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2239

        MOSES OGANGO,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00752-MSN-WEF)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Moses Ogango, Appellant Pro Se. Betty S.W. Graumlich, Noah Steven Oberlander, REED
        SMITH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2239      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Moses Ogango appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to

        dismiss as time barred Ogango’s complaint alleging claims of retaliation and national

        origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

        to 2000e-17. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. Ogango v. Verizon Bus. Network Servs., LLC,

        No. 1:22-cv-00752-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 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

                                                     2