Penn v. County of Fairfax , 289 F. App'x 648 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1405
HENRY PENN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01449-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Penn, Appellant Pro Se. James Edward Wilcox, Jr., Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Penn appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his claims
brought under the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213 (2000), and the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29
U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000). We review de novo a district court’s
order granting summary judgment and view the facts in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bacon v. City of Richmond,
475 F.3d 633, 637 (4th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate
when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence
presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48
(1986).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Penn v. County of Fairfax,
No. 1:06-cv-01449-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2008 & entered
Feb. 5, 2008). 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
- 2 -