Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Darbe v. Daley, 00-2049 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2049 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2049 VALERIE DARBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. DALEY, as and in his capacity as Secretary of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. No. 00-2474 VALERIE DARBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary, United States De- partment of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge;
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2049 VALERIE DARBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. DALEY, as and in his capacity as Secretary of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. No. 00-2474 VALERIE DARBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary, United States De- partment of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-850-A, CA-00-1162-A) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Valerie Darbe, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Valerie Darbe appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her employment discrimination actions. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Darbe v. Daley, No. CA-99-850-A; Darbe v. Mineta, No. CA- 00-1162-A (E.D. Va. June 9, 2000; July 19, 2000; Oct. 13, 2000). We deny Darbe’s motion to supplement the record and 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
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