Filed: May 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1147 TERRI BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREYHOUND BUS LINE; RAY ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-3239-JFM) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terri Baker,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1147 TERRI BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREYHOUND BUS LINE; RAY ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-3239-JFM) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terri Baker, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1147 TERRI BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREYHOUND BUS LINE; RAY ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-3239-JFM) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terri Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Karla Grossenbacher, Emily R. Friedman, SEYFARTH SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terri Baker appeals the district court’s order denying her suit alleging discrimination based on race and disability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Baker v. Greyhound Bus Line, No. CA-02-3239-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2003). 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
