Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Scott-Brown v. Cohen, 02-2140 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2140 Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 30, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2140 LATRESE D. SCOTT-BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3570-AW) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2140 LATRESE D. SCOTT-BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3570-AW) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Latrese D. Scott-Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Frank Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Lilore Huesman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Latrese D. Scott-Brown appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendants as to some claims and a monetary judgment based upon a jury verdict in her favor as to other claims in this action pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scott-Brown v. Cohen, No. CA- 00-3570-AW (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2001; July 15, 2002; filed July 18 and entered July 24, 2002). 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:  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