Filed: Aug. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1443 PATRICIA I. JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; JOHN ASHCROFT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-3517-JFM) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1443 PATRICIA I. JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; JOHN ASHCROFT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-3517-JFM) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1443 PATRICIA I. JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; JOHN ASHCROFT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-3517-JFM) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia I. James, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia I. James appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Office of Personnel Management on her action under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See James v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. CA-03-3517-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2004). 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 -
