RICKEY MEDLOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of
Defense, NIMA, Defendant - Appellee.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
86 Fed. Appx. 665; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2252
December 19, 2003, Submitted
February 11, 2004, Decided
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
(CA-02-1093-DKC). Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
COUNSEL: Dawn V. Martin, LAW OFFICES OF DAWN V. MARTIN, Washington, D. C., for Appellant.
Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
JUDGES: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
[*665] PER CURIAM:
Rickey Medlock appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in his
employment discrimination action and denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, he contends that the
district court erred by ruling on the motion for summary judgment prior to discovery, failing to consider his
claims of disparate impact, and granting summary judgment on his retaliation claim. We have reviewed the
parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for [**2] the reasons stated by the district court. See Medlock v. Rumsfeld, No. CA-02-1093-DKC (D. Md.
Dec. 31, 2002; Apr. 4, 2003). 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.
|Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin
Medlock v. Rumsfeld
Fourth Circuit Decision, 86 Fed. Appx. 665; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2252