Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Podavin v. Collett, 08-2113 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2113 Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 21, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2113 MARILEIA PODAVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREG COLLETT, District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Baltimore, Maryland; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington, DC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-01898-DKC) Submitted: October 7,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2113 MARILEIA PODAVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREG COLLETT, District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Baltimore, Maryland; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington, DC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-01898-DKC) Submitted: October 7, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl W. Hampe, Jennifer Ancona Semko, Eric J. Rahn, BAKER & MCKENZIE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, Gisela A. Westwater, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marileia Podavin appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss her complaint for declaratory and mandamus relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Podavin v. Caterisano, No. 8:07-cv-01898-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 12, 2008). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer