Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barnes v. Secretary, HHS, 00-2048 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2048 Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2048 CORINE BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99- 2501) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corine Barnes, Ap
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 00-2048



CORINE BARNES,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


SECRETARY,   DEPARTMENT   OF   HEALTH   AND   HUMAN
SERVICES,

                                                  Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99-
2501)


Submitted:   November 9, 2000             Decided:    November 15, 2000


Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Corine Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.    Larry David Adams, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Corine Barnes appeals the district court’s order dismissing

her civil action alleging employment discrimination.    We have re-

viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court.     See Barnes v. Secretary, HHS, No. CA-99-2501 (D.

Md. July 17, 2000).*     We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.




                                                            AFFIRMED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
July 14, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 17, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the
effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 
806 F.2d 1232
, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).


                                   2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer