Filed: May 09, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1772 IANKA DEMIREVA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 3109-AMD) Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ianka Demireva, Appellant Pro Se. Steven D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1772 IANKA DEMIREVA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 3109-AMD) Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ianka Demireva, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Da..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1772 IANKA DEMIREVA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 3109-AMD) Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ianka Demireva, Appellant Pro Se. Steven David Frenkil, Kathryn Mary Widmayer, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ianka Demireva appeals the order of the district court granting summary judgment to The Johns Hopkins University in Demireva’s civil action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. See Demireva v. Johns Hopkins Univ., No. CA-04-3109- AMD (D. Md. June 6, 2005). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, the opinion from the bench, and the parties’ briefs on appeal, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 -