Zulfiqar Kahn v. FedEx Office & Print Svc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00561-GBL-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999734992]. Mailed to: Z. Kahn. [15-1748]

Appeal: 15-1748

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1748

ZULFIQAR KAHN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
FEDEX CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00561-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

January 13, 2016

Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zulfiqar Kahn, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, Joleen Okun,
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1748

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Zulfiqar Kahn appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc., in his
civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C.

§§ 2000e

to

2000e-17

(2012).

As

the

district

court

ruled, Kahn failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation
claim

by

properly

raising

Opportunity Commission.

it

with

the

Equal

Employment

See Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus.,

Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 406-09 (4th Cir. 2013).

The court correctly

held that Kahn did not state a claim sufficient to withstand
summary

judgment

on

national

origin

and

his

claims

religion.

of

discrimination

His

claims

of

based

on

procedural

irregularities in the district court entitle him to no relief.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Kahn

v.

FedEx

Corporation,

No.

1:14-cv-00561-GBL-IDD

(E.D. Va. May 29, 2015).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2