Filed: Dec. 17, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1372 NANCY F. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL LEAVITT, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-02819-WDQ) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1372 NANCY F. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL LEAVITT, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-02819-WDQ) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1372
NANCY F. MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL LEAVITT, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:04-cv-02819-WDQ)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norton C. Joerg, Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jason D. Medinger, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nancy F. Moore appeals the district court’s orders
denying her motion to amend her complaint and granting Defendant
summary judgment on her employment discrimination and retaliation
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Moore v. Thompson, No. 1:04-cv-02819-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2007). 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
*
We have assumed for purposes of this appeal that the
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,
126 S. Ct. 2405
(2006) “adverse employment action” standard applies to retaliation
claims brought by federal employees.
- 2 -