Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Watkins v. Geren, 07-1859 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1859 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 20, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1859 FELICIA G. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02728-JFM) Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: May 20, 2008 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1859 FELICIA G. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02728-JFM) Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: May 20, 2008 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffery C. Taylor, Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Felicia G. Watkins appeals the district court’s orders denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for additional discovery, granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her race and gender discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Watkins v. Geren, No. 1:06-cv-02728-JFM (D. Md. June 19, 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 -
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