Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Carroll Cnty Public, 00-1060 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1060 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 24, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1060 THELMA PATRICIA SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1922-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1060 THELMA PATRICIA SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1922-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thelma Patricia Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Rochelle Stutman Eisen- berg, Edmund Joseph O’Meally, Leslie Robert Stellman, BLUM, YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN & DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thelma Smith appeals the district court’s order granting sum- mary judgment to the Carroll County Public Schools on Smith’s em- ployment discrimination claims. We affirm. The court determined that Smith’s claims as to failure to hire or promote were not properly before the court because Smith did not raise them in her EEOC complaint. The court further determined that based upon the record, Smith could not establish that during her period of employment, she was performing the duties of her job satisfactorily and therefore, she was unable to present a prima facie case as to her remaining claims. We have reviewed the record and the court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Car- roll County Pub. Schs., No. CA-99-1922-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 28, 1999). We deny Smith’s motions for appointment of counsel and for the pro- duction of transcripts at government expense. 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