Lester Moody v. Baltimore City Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-03706-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000106820]. Mailed to: Lester Moody Courtyard #1,Apt 328 4412 Marble Hall Road Baltimore, MD 21218-0000. [17-1309]

Appeal: 17-1309

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1309

LESTER MOODY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-03706-JFM)

Submitted: June 19, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Elise Song Kurlander, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1309

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lester Moody appeals the district court’s order granting the Baltimore City
Department of Social Services summary judgment on his claims, brought pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2012); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1688
(2012); and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t
§ 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Moody v. Baltimore City Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., No. 1:16-cv-03706-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2017); see also Balas v.
Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 406 (4th Cir. 2013) (“An employee
seeking redress for discrimination cannot file suit until []he has exhausted the
administrative process.”); Resource Banksources Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Inc. Co., 407
F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for
summary judgment may not rest upon . . . mere allegations or denials . . ., but must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). 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

2