Filed: Jan. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1919 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTAT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-00158-RWT) Submitted: January 22, 2018 Decided: January 24, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Todd James
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1919 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTAT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-00158-RWT) Submitted: January 22, 2018 Decided: January 24, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Todd James ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1919 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTAT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-00158-RWT) Submitted: January 22, 2018 Decided: January 24, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Todd James Horn, Lillian Lane Reynolds, VENABLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders denying three post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Westat, No. 8:16-cv-00158- RWT (D. Md. July 6 & 31, 2017; Aug. 11, 2017). 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 2
