Yuri Stoyanov v. Charles Behrle
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cv-01985-DKC. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Yuri Stoyanov. [16-1910]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
YURI J. STOYANOV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as
the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of
Code 70; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as the Head of Code 74; BRUCE CROCK, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 743; DAVID
CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as
Assistant Counsel Code 39; CATHERINE KISSMEIER, Individually
and in her Official Capacity as Counsel Code 40; GARTH
JENSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy
Head Code 70; MARY (CATHY) FOWLER, Individually and in her
Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 70; KENNETH
FORMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of
Code 73; KENNETH GOLDMAN, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Head of Code 71; ARCHER MACY, Individually and
in His Official Capacity as the Head of Naval Surface
Warfare Center; SEAN J. STACKLEY, Acting Secretary of the
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
February 6, 2017
March 3, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se.
Allen F. Loucks, Kelly
Marie Marzullo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
against Defendants, including claims brought pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
Although we previously affirmed the district court’s
rehearing en banc.
We have again reviewed the record and find no reversible
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
See Stoyanov v. Behrle, No. 1:07-cv-01985-DKC
(D. Md. Aug. 26, 2015 & June 13, 2016).
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.
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?