Filed: Jun. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1758 CAROL EVERHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (8:11-cv-02155-CBD) Submitted: May 23, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Everhart, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1758 CAROL EVERHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (8:11-cv-02155-CBD) Submitted: May 23, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Everhart, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1758
CAROL EVERHART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge.
(8:11-cv-02155-CBD)
Submitted: May 23, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Everhart, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard J. Stief, Associate
General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carol Everhart appeals the magistrate judge’s order of
judgment for the Defendant in accordance with the jury’s verdict
in her civil action. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s
order. See Everhart v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., No.
8:11-cv-02155-CBD (D. Md. filed May 22, 2013; entered May 24,
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
∗
The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
2