Filed: May 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1870 NANCY CHRISTINE WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary United States Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01074-RDB) Submitted: April 15, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1870 NANCY CHRISTINE WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary United States Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01074-RDB) Submitted: April 15, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1870
NANCY CHRISTINE WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary United States Department of
Defense,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01074-RDB)
Submitted: April 15, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark W. Howes, LAW OFFICES OF MARK W. HOWES, LLC, Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Melanie L. Glickson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nancy Christine Wilson appeals the district court’s
order dismissing her civil action alleging employment
discrimination. On appeal, she argues that the district court
erred in granting her former employer’s motion for summary
judgment. We review orders granting summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standards as the district court, Nguyen
v. CNA Corp.,
44 F.3d 234, 236 (4th Cir. 1995), and our review
of the record reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilson v.
Gates, No. 1:09-cv-01074-RDB (D. Md. June 29, 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
2