Filed: May 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1989 FARIBA WALDROP, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-00328-AW) Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce E. Smithey, RIFKI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1989 FARIBA WALDROP, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-00328-AW) Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce E. Smithey, RIFKIN..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1989 FARIBA WALDROP, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-00328-AW) Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce E. Smithey, RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Linda Hitt Thatcher, Robert J. Baror, THATCHER LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fariba Waldrop appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Waldrop v. Science Applications Int’l Corp., No. 8:10-cv-00328-AW (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2011). 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