Willie L. Glover, Jr. v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Sec'y of the Army, 929 F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Willie L. Glover, Jr. v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Sec'y of the Army, 929 F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willie L. Glover, Jr.
v.
John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army
90-1144.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 21, 1991.
929 F.2d 692
Unpublished

929 F.2d 692
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Willie L. GLOVER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John O. MARSH, JR., Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-1144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 1991.
Decided March 21, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., District Judge. (CA-89-455-B)

Willie L. Glover, Jr., appellant pro se.

Juliet Ann Eurich, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Willie L. Glover, Jr. appeals from the district court's order denying relief in this action alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq. 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. Glover v. Marsh, CA-89-455-B (D.Md. Aug. 10, 1990). 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