Filed: Oct. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1000 MARY CAROLINE COLLETTI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MACRO INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Amicus Curiae. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 591-MJG) Submitted: September 9, 1997 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1000 MARY CAROLINE COLLETTI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MACRO INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Amicus Curiae. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 591-MJG) Submitted: September 9, 1997 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1000
MARY CAROLINE COLLETTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MACRO INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-
591-MJG)
Submitted: September 9, 1997 Decided: October 19, 1998
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Caroline Colletti, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Barry Sternstein,
James Murdoch Kefauver, Sr., SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY &
ECKER, P.A., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Linda B. Thall,
Senior Assistant County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland, for Amicus
Curiae.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff appeals the district court’s order granting the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Colletti v. Macro International, No. CA-96-591-MJG (D. Md.
Nov. 13, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be-
fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*
AFFIRMED
*
A new argument as to the timeliness of the plaintiff’s claim
was raised for the first time on appeal by amicus curiae. A
decision to reach a new issue on appeal is subject to our
discretion and is dependent on the circumstances of the individual
case. Singleton v. Wulff,
428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976). We decline to
consider this new argument because the factual basis for it was not
sufficiently developed in the record.
2