Filed: Oct. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1442 CARDELLIA ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Informations Systems & Global Solutions, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11- cv-02655-RWT) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1442 CARDELLIA ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Informations Systems & Global Solutions, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11- cv-02655-RWT) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1442
CARDELLIA ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a Lockheed Martin
Informations Systems & Global Solutions,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11-
cv-02655-RWT)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cardellia Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Campbell, Stacey
Lynn Schwaber, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, PA,
Potomac, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cardellia Anderson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint alleging wrongful termination under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012) and interference and
retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 2601 to 2654 (West 2009 & Supp. 2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., No. 8:11-cv-02655-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2012). We
also deny Anderson’s motion to appoint counsel, and her motions
to reconsider two prior procedural rulings. We deny Anderson’s
motion to schedule oral argument, dispensing 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