Filed: May 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2483 GLENDA GAIL PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-431-A) Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenda Gail Parker, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2483 GLENDA GAIL PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-431-A) Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenda Gail Parker, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2483 GLENDA GAIL PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-431-A) Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenda Gail Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven E. Gordon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glenda Gail Parker appeals the district court’s order dismissing for want of jurisdiction Parker’s action challenging her removal from employment and raising other claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v. Department of Def., No. CA-03-431-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 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 -
