Filed: Mar. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2461 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.ED., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK PRITCHARD, Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN P. DAVEY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-01439-PJM) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: March 22, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2461 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.ED., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK PRITCHARD, Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN P. DAVEY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-01439-PJM) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: March 22, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2461
STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.ED.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK PRITCHARD, Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JOHN P. DAVEY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-01439-PJM)
Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: March 22, 2018
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Menkel McGuire, LAW OFFICE OF
MELISSA MENKEL MCGUIRE LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders entering judgment for
Defendants in this action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Sewell v. Pritchard, No. 8:17-cv-01439-PJM (D. Md. June 1
& Dec. 22, 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