Filed: Aug. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1618 GINA DEVASAHAYAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PAUL S. HOFFMAN; UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (3:12-cv-00037-BWC) Submitted: July 26, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013 Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1618 GINA DEVASAHAYAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PAUL S. HOFFMAN; UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (3:12-cv-00037-BWC) Submitted: July 26, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013 Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1618 GINA DEVASAHAYAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PAUL S. HOFFMAN; UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (3:12-cv-00037-BWC) Submitted: July 26, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013 Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gina Devasahayam, Appellant Pro Se. Alison Paige Landry, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gina Devasahayam appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting summary judgment on her claims of gender and national origin discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order and deny as moot Devasahayam’s motion to expedite the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 8636(c) (2006). 2