Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2060 ORISHA KAMMEFA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-6-B) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2060 ORISHA KAMMEFA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-6-B) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2060 ORISHA KAMMEFA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-6-B) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orisha Kammefa, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Arne Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her civil complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995), alleging discrimination based on race, gender, and religion, and retaliation. Appellant also appeals from the court's order denying her motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kammefa v. Maryland Dep't of Agric., No. CA-94-6-B (D. Md. Feb. 24, 1995; Apr. 20, 1995). 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 2