Shelton v. Lockheed Martin Operations
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SHELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOCKHEED MARTIN OPERATIONS INCORPORATED; LOCKHEED MARTIN INCORPORATED, SUPPORT, SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00141-JCC)
Submitted: June 15, 2007
Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason H. Ehrenberg, BAILEY & EHRENBERG, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John B. Flood, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael Shelton appeals the district court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc., on his claim of retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix Accordingly, we affirm for the Shelton v. Lockheed Martin
and find no reversible error.
reasons stated by the district court.
Operations, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00141-JCC (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 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 decision making process.
- 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?