Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Quevedo v. Rumsfeld, 03-1529 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1529 Visitors: 279
Filed: Oct. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1529 MARIA LUISA QUEVEDO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense; ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE (AAFES), Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-806-FNS) Submitted: September 22, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1529 MARIA LUISA QUEVEDO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense; ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE (AAFES), Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-806-FNS) Submitted: September 22, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marie Luisa Quevedo, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Maria Luisa Quevedo appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. Quevedo alleged that the defendants discriminated against her by failing to promote her because of her race and national origin. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Quevedo v. Rumsfeld, No. CA- 02-806-FNS (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2003). 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