Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Melodie Shuler v. Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., 13-1910 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1910 Visitors: 31
Filed: Mar. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1910 MELODIE SHULER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWER LEGAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01684-CCB) Submitted: January 31, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melodie Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. Gil A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1910 MELODIE SHULER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWER LEGAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01684-CCB) Submitted: January 31, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melodie Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. Gil A. Abramson, Eileen Carr Riley, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In Melodie Shuler’s civil action arising out of the termination of her employment, Shuler appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, denying Shuler’s motion to amend her complaint, and granting Defendant’s motion to strike. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Shuler v. Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01684-CCB (D. Md. June 18, 2013). 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 * We also find no error in the district court’s order granting Shuler’s motion for extension of the discovery deadline. 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