Filed: Sep. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1238 DEBORAH KOGER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. C. T. WOODY, in his official capacity as Sheriff, City of Richmond, Virginia, Defendant – Appellee, v. ROBERT A. DYBING, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:09-cv-00090-MHL) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1238 DEBORAH KOGER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. C. T. WOODY, in his official capacity as Sheriff, City of Richmond, Virginia, Defendant – Appellee, v. ROBERT A. DYBING, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:09-cv-00090-MHL) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1238
DEBORAH KOGER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
C. T. WOODY, in his official capacity as Sheriff, City of
Richmond, Virginia,
Defendant – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT A. DYBING,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00090-MHL)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Koger, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Ward, MORRIS &
MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Koger appeals the magistrate judge’s * order
granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her retaliation
claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003
& Supp. 2010). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s
order. See Koger v. Woody, No. 3:09-cv-00090-MHL (E.D. Va.
Jan. 26, 2010). 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
*
The parties consented to the exercise of the district
court’s jurisdiction by a magistrate judge, as permitted by
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
