Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Keller v. Department of Army, 95-3148 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3148 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3148 CONNIE T. KELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; TOGO D. WEST, Secre- tary of the Army; ANDREW PERKINS, Commander; J. M. CASKY, Chief F&A; S. SHEFFLER, Chief Military Acct.; DIANE ROUSE, Chief HRO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-94-951-2) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3148 CONNIE T. KELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; TOGO D. WEST, Secre- tary of the Army; ANDREW PERKINS, Commander; J. M. CASKY, Chief F&A; S. SHEFFLER, Chief Military Acct.; DIANE ROUSE, Chief HRO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-94-951-2) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Connie T. Keller, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anson Rhine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re- lief on her claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 791-794 (West 1985 & Supp. 1995). 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. Keller v. Department of the Army, No. CA-94-951-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 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