Filed: Feb. 16, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2023 RITA NADINE RUBENDALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY G. THOMPSON, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 04-2554-8-PJM) Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2023 RITA NADINE RUBENDALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY G. THOMPSON, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 04-2554-8-PJM) Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2023 RITA NADINE RUBENDALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY G. THOMPSON, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 04-2554-8-PJM) Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rita Nadine Rubendall, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Ray White, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rita Nadine Rubendall appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer in her civil action alleging claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rubendall v. Thompson, No. CA-04-2554- 8-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2005). 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 -