Court Opinion

ID: 9956785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:46.115858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.578859
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1889      Doc: 23         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1889

        MOHAMMAD EHSAN HAJABBASSI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        NILES BOLTON ASSOCIATES, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01131-LMB-WEF)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Nicholas Woodfield, Robert S. Oswald, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW
        GROUP PC, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Leslie Paul Machado, Amy M. Heerink,
        O’HAGAN MEYER, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1889      Doc: 23         Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mohammad Hajabbassi, a White Muslim of Iranian descent, appeals the district

        court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment on Hajabbassi’s discrimination and

        retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

        §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Hajabbassi v. Niles

        Bolton Assocs., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01131-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 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