Filed: Jan. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2083 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-02457-PX) Submitted: January 22, 2018 Decided: January 24, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2083 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-02457-PX) Submitted: January 22, 2018 Decided: January 24, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2083
STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-02457-PX)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Molissa Heather Farber, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Joel William Ruderman, PENSION
BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and denying Sewell’s motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Commodity Futures
Trading Comm’n, No. 8:16-cv-02457-PX (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2017; Sept. 12, 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