Michael Burton v. Amcor Flexibles

Filing 920080724

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1288 MICHAEL W. BURTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-01289-WDQ) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Winfield Hahn, SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael W. Burton appeals the district court's order entering final judgment against him on his discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) ("Title VII"), and his discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 to 634 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 (2000).* find no reversible error. court's judgment. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm the district See Burton v. Amcor Flexibles, No. 1:06-cvWe dispense with oral argument 01289-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2008). because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED The district court granted Defendant summary judgment on all of Burton's claims except his Title VII retaliatory discharge claim, which was presented to a jury. After the jury returned a verdict in Defendant's favor on the retaliation claim, the district court entered final judgment in Defendant's favor. - 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?