Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cobero v. Potter, 03-1358 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1358 Visitors: 40
Filed: Nov. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1358 MARILOU B. COBERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, U. S. Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-540-A) Submitted: October 31, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1358 MARILOU B. COBERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, U. S. Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-540-A) Submitted: October 31, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Stack, Beatriz D. Stack, STACK & STACK, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Dennis E. Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marilou B. Cobero appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service on her claims of national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment and denying her motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cobero v. Potter, No. CA-02-540-A (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 20, 2002 & entered Dec. 26, 2002; filed Mar. 19, 2003 & entered Mar. 20, 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
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