ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1910
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01985-DKC)
Submitted: February 6, 2017 Decided: March 3, 2017
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Kelly
Marie Marzullo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
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
3