Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Branch-Williams v. Spencer, 10-1290 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1290 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 19, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1290 JOYCE BRANCH-WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM D. SPENCER, Clerk of the Board Merit System Protection Board; RALPH TORRES, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Resolution Management Office of General Counsel (024) Department of Veterans Affairs; ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryla
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1290 JOYCE BRANCH-WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM D. SPENCER, Clerk of the Board Merit System Protection Board; RALPH TORRES, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Resolution Management Office of General Counsel (024) Department of Veterans Affairs; ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-02687-JFM) Submitted: May 3, 2010 Decided: May 19, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce Branch-Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joyce Branch-Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Branch-Williams v. Spencer, No. 1:09-cv- 02687-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 13, 2010 & Feb. 17, 2010). We also deny Branch-Williams’ pending motions to expedite, for procedural and substantive relief, for emergency financial relief, and for summary judgment. 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