Filed: Jul. 26, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1186 PAMELA MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FRANCIS J. HARVEY; LTC WILLIAM LUKENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01160-LMB) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pame
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1186 PAMELA MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FRANCIS J. HARVEY; LTC WILLIAM LUKENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01160-LMB) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1186 PAMELA MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FRANCIS J. HARVEY; LTC WILLIAM LUKENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01160-LMB) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Lee Gregg, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Jason Mikolashek, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pamela Marshall appeals the district court’s order granting her former federal employer’s motion for summary judgment as to her petition for review of the Merit System Protection Board’s decision and on her employment discrimination claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marshall v. Harvey, No. 1:06-cv-01160-LMB (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2007; filed Feb. 15, 2007 & entered Feb. 16, 2007). We deny Marshall’s motion to expedite as moot and 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 -