# Vaeth v. Board of Trustees

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 23, 2010

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/179785

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 23, 2010
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/179785

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2056

BRIAN CHARLES VAETH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS OF BALTIMORE CITY; WILLIAM J. GOODWIN, JR., Chief of
Baltimore City Fire Department; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE CITY; FREDERICK MCGRATH, Hearing Examiner, Panel
of Hearing Examiners for the Fire & Police Employees
Retirement Systems of Baltimore City,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-00708-RDB)

Submitted: November 9, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Charles Vaeth, Appellant Pro Se. William Rowe Phelan,
Jr., Sabrina Willis, BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Brian Charles Vaeth appeals the district court’s order

granting judgment to Defendants in this action raising various

federal and state claims in connection with his termination from

employment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Vaeth v. Bd. of Trustees, Fire & Police

Employees Retirement Sys., No. 1:08-cv-00708-RDB (D. Md.

Aug. 11, 2009). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/179785. Public record. Not legal advice.