Filed: Apr. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1691 INA SAMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-01819-WDQ) Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Scott Oswald, Adam Augustine Car
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1691 INA SAMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-01819-WDQ) Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Scott Oswald, Adam Augustine Cart..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1691 INA SAMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-01819-WDQ) Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Scott Oswald, Adam Augustine Carter, Gregory Sharma-Holt, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kevin Karpinski, Victoria M. Shearer, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ina Sampson appeals the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sampson v. City of Cambridge, No. 1:06-cv-01819-WDQ (D. Md. June 5, 2008). 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
