Phelan v. Hanulik, 42 F.3d 1386 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Phelan v. Hanulik, 42 F.3d 1386 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest negative: McNierney v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (mdd, 1995-11-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" McNierney v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Rachelson v. Secretary, U.S. DHHS., 834 F.Supp. 879 , 886 (D.Md.1993), aff'd 42 F.3d 1386 (4th Cir.1994) in which Judge Legg of this court held that a male plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, under the McDonnell Douglas framework, because as a male he was not a member of a disadvantaged class. 7 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard Thomas Phelan
v.
A. T. Hanulik, Warden Mason Kent Neil Potter Mavis Lloyd Lieutenant Duran Lieutenant Rufner Terrance Ellis Dan Ryan, in Their Individual and Official Capacities
94-6299.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 7, 1994.
42 F.3d 1386
Unpublished

42 F.3d 1386

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Richard Thomas PHELAN, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
A. T. HANULIK, Warden; Mason Kent; Neil Potter; Mavis
Lloyd; Lieutenant Duran; Lieutenant Rufner;
Terrance Ellis; Dan Ryan, in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants
Appellees.

No. 94-6299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 1994
Decided Dec. 7, 1994.

Richard Thomas Phelan, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Joyce Reuben Stern, Assistant County Attorney, Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, MD, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Phelan v. Hanulik, No. CA-93-886 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 1994). 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

*

Phelan has filed a motion in this Court seeking to have his Complaint entered on the district court's docket. Because the docket sheet reflects the entry of the Complaint, the motion is hereby denied