Filed: Nov. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1257 S. K. VARMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN W. DUDAS, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00421-JCC) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1257 S. K. VARMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN W. DUDAS, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00421-JCC) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1257 S. K. VARMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN W. DUDAS, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00421-JCC) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. K. Varma, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: S. K. Varma appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000), and her retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and affirming the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision affirming her removal from employment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Varma v. Dudas, No. 1:06-cv-00421-JCC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2007). 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 -