WILLIAMS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, 13-1977. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140219104
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Sandra Williams appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Williams' employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on July 2, 2013. Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01231-PJM (D. Md
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Sandra Williams appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Williams' employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on July 2, 2013. Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01231-PJM (D. Md...
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Sandra Williams appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Williams' employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on July 2, 2013. Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01231-PJM (D. Md. July 3, 2013). 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.
FootNotes
* In addition to challenging the district court's rejection of her claims on the merits, Williams also asserts that the district court's order should be vacated because her counsel was ineffective. However, a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986); see Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-86 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2856 (2013).
Source: Leagle
