Stoyanov v. Mabus ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1133
YURI J. STOYANOV,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RAYMOND E. MABUS, Secretary of the Navy; CHARLES BEHRLE,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of
the Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center; GARY
M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the
Head of Code 70, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center; GERALD A. SMITH, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 70, Carderock Division,
Naval Surface Warfare Center; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74,
Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center; JOHN C.
DAVIES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the
Deputy Head of Code 74; BRUCE CROCK, Individually and in
his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74, Carderock
Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center; PAUL SHANG,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of
Code 72, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Division; MATHEW CRAUN, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as the Head of Code 722, Carderock Division, Naval
Surface Warfare Center; M. KATHLEEN FOWLER, Individually
and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code
709, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center;
DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as
Assistant Counsel Code 39, Carderock Division, Naval
Surface Warfare Center; KAREN EVANISH, Individually and in
her Official Capacity as Human Resources Specialist,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01764-WDQ)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his claims against Defendants, including those
brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 621 to 634 (2006), and the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1221 and 2302 (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. See Stoyanov v. Mabus, No. 1:07-cv-
01764-WDQ (D. Md. Dec. 9, 2009). 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
3