Lester Moody v. Baltimore City Department


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1309 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1309 LESTER MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?