Filed: Feb. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2083 JENNIFER MAZZARELLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02-3576-AMD) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2083 JENNIFER MAZZARELLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02-3576-AMD) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2083 JENNIFER MAZZARELLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02-3576-AMD) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer Mazzarello, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ross Niccolini, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jennifer Mazzarello appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons as stated by the district court in its order granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment. See Mazzarello v. Lucent Tech., Inc., No. CA-02-3576-AMD (D. Md. July 24, 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 -
