Filed: Apr. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6204 JANINE MCDONALD Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02759-ELH) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janine McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Th
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6204 JANINE MCDONALD Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02759-ELH) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janine McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Tho..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6204 JANINE MCDONALD Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02759-ELH) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janine McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Janine McDonald appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. McDonald v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:12-cv-02759-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 10, 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 2
