Hugh Tito v. Ashton Carter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00453-REP Copies to all parties and the district court. [999910960]. Mailed to: Hugh Tito. [16-1036]

Appeal: 16-1036

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1036

HUGH TITO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ASHTON B. CARTER, The Honorable, Secretary, Department of
Defense (Defense Logistics Agency),
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00453-REP)

Submitted:

August 11, 2016

Decided:

August 16, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugh Tito, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1036

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Hugh

Tito

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his civil
action alleging age discrimination in a promotion decision and in
setting his compensation while he held a temporary position.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. *
2015).

Tito v. Hagel, No. 3:14-cv-00453-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 17,
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

*

Although Defendant may not have complied with Local Rule
7(E), district courts in the Eastern District of Virginia do not
view a violation of that rule as fatal to a motion for summary
judgment.
See Hunt v. Calhoun Cnty. Bank, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d
720, 731 (E.D. Va. 2014) (“Failure to meet and confer does not
automatically result in denial of a motion. Rather, sanctions for
failure to meet and confer lie within a district court’s discretion
and its inherent power to control its docket.” (citations
omitted)).
2