Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Roupe v. Shalala, 96-2738 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2738 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 28, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Filed: July 28, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2738 (CA-96-56-MJG) Betty I. Roupe, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed June 19, 1997, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3 - the appellee is corrected to read "Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UN
More
Filed: July 28, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2738 (CA-96-56-MJG) Betty I. Roupe, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed June 19, 1997, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the appellee is corrected to read "Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2738 BETTY I. ROUPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 56-MJG) Submitted: June 3, 1997 Decided: June 19, 1997 Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Betty I. Roupe, Appellant Pro Se. Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in a Title VII discrimination case. 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. Roupe v. Shalala, No. CA-96-56-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1996). 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 3
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