Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anica Ashbourne v. Timothy Geithner, 12-2029 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2029 Visitors: 42
Filed: Dec. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2029 ANICA ASHBOURNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (global High Wealth), a Component of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; DONNA HANSBERRY, Director, GHW; DONNA PRESTIA, Assistant Director, GHW; THOMAS COLLINS, Territory Manager, GHW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2029 ANICA ASHBOURNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (global High Wealth), a Component of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; DONNA HANSBERRY, Director, GHW; DONNA PRESTIA, Assistant Director, GHW; THOMAS COLLINS, Territory Manager, GHW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11- cv-02818-RWT; 8:11-cv-03199-RWT; 8:11-cv-03456-RWT) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anica Ashbourne, Appellant Pro Se. Melanie Lisa Glickson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anica Ashbourne appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to transfer her consolidated actions to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissing her Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying her motion to proceed pseudonymously. Limiting our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the district court’s order. Ashbourne v. Geithner, No. 8:11-cv-02818-RWT; 8:11-cv-03199-RWT; 8:11-cv-03456-RWT (D. Md. July 12, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in 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