Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jimenez v. Astrue, 08-1182 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1182 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1182 ROSEMARY L. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; NEIL ANTHONY GORDON MCPHIE, United States Merit System Protection Board; LINDA M. SPRINGER, United States Office of Personnel Management, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06- cv-03228-JFM) S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1182 ROSEMARY L. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; NEIL ANTHONY GORDON MCPHIE, United States Merit System Protection Board; LINDA M. SPRINGER, United States Office of Personnel Management, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06- cv-03228-JFM) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER,* Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosemary L. Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Samuel Gordon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Wright Schick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. * The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). PER CURIAM: Rosemary L. Jimenez appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jimenez v. Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-03228-JFM (D. Md., Nov. 20, 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