Michael Cousin v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00365-LMB-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000105352]. Mailed to: M Cousin. [17-1150]

Appeal: 17-1150

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1150

MICHAEL COUSIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Defendants – Appellees,
And
JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, in his capacity of Former Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection Agency); TROY MILLER;
DONALD CONROY; DENIS GRENIER; ROBERT MAIMBOURG;
CHRISTOPHER SMITH; RICHARD C. BLANKS, MD; PAUL G. PRENIER,
MD,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00365-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Decided: June 22, 2017

Appeal: 17-1150

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Cousin, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Maria Konkoly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1150

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Cousin appeals from the district court’s judgment in Defendants’ favor on
Cousin’s civil claims against Defendants, including Cousin’s disability discrimination
claim brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2016). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Cousin v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-00365-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2017). 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