Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
YURI J. STOYANOV, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74; BRUCE CROCK, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 743; DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39; CATHERINE KISSMEIER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Counsel Code 40; GARTH JENSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head Code 70; MARY (CATHY) FOWLER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 70; KENNETH FORMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of Code 73; KENNETH GOLDMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of Code 71; ARCHER MACY, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Head of Naval Surface Warfare Center; SEAN J. STACKLEY, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Defendants - Appellees.
Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court's orders entered after the district court dismissed Stoyanov's claims against Defendants, including claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2012). Although we previously affirmed the district court's orders, we subsequently granted panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc.
We have again reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stoyanov v. Behrle, No. 1:07-cv-01985-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2015 & June 13, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-1910
Decided: March 03, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)