From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dedrick v. Berry

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 7, 2011
445 F. App'x 638 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 11-1358

09-07-2011

EDWARD C. DEDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the U.S. Army, Defendants - Appellees.

Edward C. Dedrick, Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00429-WDQ)

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward C. Dedrick, Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Edward C. Dedrick appeals the district court's order denying his summary judgment motion and granting Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment on Dedrick's action seeking review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's order denying his claim for disability retirement benefits under the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. (West 2007 & Supp. 2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See Dedrick v. Berry, No. 1:07-cv-00429-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2011). 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


Summaries of

Dedrick v. Berry

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 7, 2011
445 F. App'x 638 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Dedrick v. Berry

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD C. DEDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 7, 2011

Citations

445 F. App'x 638 (4th Cir. 2011)