Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Orisha Kammefa v. Maryland Department of Agriculture Wayne Cawley Robert Walker Douglas Wilson Craig Nielsen Thomas Filbert, 93-2580 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-2580 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 31, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 1429 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Orisha KAMMEFA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Wayne Cawley; Robert Walker; Douglas Wilson; Craig Nielsen; Thomas Filbert, Defendants Appellees. No. 93-2580. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circ
More

19 F.3d 1429

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Orisha KAMMEFA, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Wayne Cawley; Robert
Walker; Douglas Wilson; Craig Nielsen; Thomas
Filbert, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-2580.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 22, 1994.
Decided March 31, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-2898)

Orisha Kammefa, appellant pro se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Orisha Kammefa appeals the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kammefa v. Maryland Dep't of Agriculture, No. CA-93-2898 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 1993); see generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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