Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp
Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1027
ANGELO L. BODOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and FREDERICK D. MITCHEM; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOR- TUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiffs, versus NORTH ARUNDEL HOSPITAL; DAVID MCGUNIGALE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Maintenance Supervisor at North Arundel Hos- pital; FRANK FLORENTINO, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Maintenance Super- visor at North Arundel Hospital; CHARLES WIL- SON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Director, Plant Operations Department at North Arundel Hospital; PHILLIP ENGERS, Indi- vidually and in his Official Capacity as As- sistant Director, Plant Operations Department at North Arundel Hospital; T. WYATT MEDICUS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Executive Vice President at North Arundel Hospital; JAMES WALKER, Individually and in his Official Capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer at North Arundel Hospital, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2404-K) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo L. Bodoy, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Simpler, Robert H.
Ingle, III, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., No. CA-94-2404-K (D. Md. Nov. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.