Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Flater v. Runyon, 95-2377 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2377 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 11, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2377 ELIZABETH ANN FLATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-94-632-WMN) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Ann Flate
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2377 ELIZABETH ANN FLATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-94-632-WMN) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Ann Flater, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Lori Joan Dym, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elizabeth Ann Flater appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Defendant in her Title VII case al- leging discrimination based on gender. Specifically, Flater alleged that the United States Postal Service discriminated against her on account of her sex when they promoted a male employee to a position for which she had bid. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Flater v. Runyon, No. CA-94-632-WMN (D. Md. May 31, 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
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