Eugene Santos v. Donald Winter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cv-03994-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998679327].. [10-2151, 11-1488]

Appeal: 10-2151

Document: 41

Date Filed: 09/16/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2151

EUGENE W. SANTOS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant – Appellee.

No. 11-1488

EUGENE W. SANTOS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Charleston.
David C. Norton, Chief
District Judge. (2:08-cv-03994-DCN)

Submitted:

September 14, 2011

Decided:

September 16, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 10-2151

Document: 41

Date Filed: 09/16/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher R. Pudelski, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER R. PUDELSKI,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-2151

Document: 41

Date Filed: 09/16/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Eugene Santos appeals
the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor
of

the

Secretary

discrimination

of

claims,

the

Navy

brought

on

pursuant

Santos’s
to

Title

employment
VII

of

the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17

(2006),

and

supplement the record.
that

the

district

Accordingly,

we

granting

Secretary’s

motion

to

We have reviewed the record and find

court

affirm

the

did
the

not

commit

district

reversible

court’s

error.

orders.

See

Santos v. Winter, No. 2:08-cv-03994-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 21, 2010 &
May 5, 2011).

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

3