Yuri Stoyanov v. Charles Behrle, No. 16-1910 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 29, 2016.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1910 YURI J. STOYANOV, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually and in his Official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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Yuri entered J. Stoyanov after the appeals district the court district dismissed court’s orders Stoyanov’s claims against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 Employment (2012). orders, 2000e-17 Act of (2012), 1967, as and the amended, Age Discrimination 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to in 634 Although we previously affirmed the district court’s 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
