Bharadwaja v. O'Malley

Filing 920070601


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2161 RAJ BHARADWAJA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTIN O'MALLEY, Individually and as The Mayor of Baltimore City; CITY OF BALTIMORE; BALTIMORE CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY; DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; DORREYA ELMENSHAWY, I n d i v i d ually and as officer/employee of Baltimore City Department; JOHN DOE, 1-5; JANE DOE, 1-5, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:04-cv-03826-RDB) Submitted: May 2, 2007 Decided: June 1, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael P. Coyle, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. COYLE, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Karen Stakem Hornig, Chief Legal Counsel, George A. Nilson, City Solicitor, William R. Phelan, Jr., Principal Counsel, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raj Bharadwaja brought this action against Martin O'Malley, individually and as the Mayor of Baltimore City, the City of Baltimore, and several other governmental and individual defendants, alleging claims of wrongful discharge, defamation, civil conspiracy and a claim of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bharadwaja v. O'Malley, No. 1:04-cv-03826RDB (D. Md. filed Sept. 27, 2006; entered Sept. 28, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?