Filed: Aug. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2065 COSANDRA R. CARR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07- cv-02554-RWT) Submitted: August 18, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cosandra R. Carr, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2065 COSANDRA R. CARR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07- cv-02554-RWT) Submitted: August 18, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cosandra R. Carr, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2065
COSANDRA R. CARR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-
cv-02554-RWT)
Submitted: August 18, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cosandra R. Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Tonia Yvetta Belton-
Gofreed, Associate County Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cosandra R. Carr appeals the district court’s order
granting Prince George’s County, Maryland’s summary judgment
motion on her employment discrimination claims, brought pursuant
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. See Carr v. Prince George’s Cnty., MD,
No. 8:07-cv-02554-RWT (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2009). 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