Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2065 ANDREA G. BRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD L. DANZIG, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-4030-CCB) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2065 ANDREA G. BRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD L. DANZIG, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-4030-CCB) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2065 ANDREA G. BRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD L. DANZIG, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-4030-CCB) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrea G. Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Andrea G. Briggs appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants on her employment dis- crimination action. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Briggs v. Danzig, No. CA-98-4030-CCB (D. Md. May 26, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
