Filed: Oct. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1259 BETTINA M. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2230-S) Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: October 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1259 BETTINA M. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2230-S) Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: October 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1259 BETTINA M. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2230-S) Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: October 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David H. Shapiro, Diane Duhig, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, James M. Webster, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bettina M. Scott appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in this employment discrimination action against the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis- tration (“SAMHSA”). We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scott v. Shalala, No. CA- 99-2230-S (D. Md. Dec. 21, 1999). 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