Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Debbie Washington v. Patrick Donahoe, 14-1162 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1162 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jun. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1162 DEBBIE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General for the United States Postal Service Capital Metro Area; PRINCE JONES; ANNETTA WALLACE, Retired; IDA STRUGELL; TONI GRIER, Retired; FRANCES C. LAMER; JENNIFER GREEN; ROCHELL TALLEY; WILLIAMS JACOB; WILLIAM MOONEY; U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Postmaster General; ROBERT HARNEST, NALC 142 Branch; ELLEN S. SALTZMAN, Arbitrator; TIMOTHY W. DOWDY, N
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1162 DEBBIE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General for the United States Postal Service Capital Metro Area; PRINCE JONES; ANNETTA WALLACE, Retired; IDA STRUGELL; TONI GRIER, Retired; FRANCES C. LAMER; JENNIFER GREEN; ROCHELL TALLEY; WILLIAMS JACOB; WILLIAM MOONEY; U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Postmaster General; ROBERT HARNEST, NALC 142 Branch; ELLEN S. SALTZMAN, Arbitrator; TIMOTHY W. DOWDY, National Business Agent; ROBERT WILLIAMS, NALC-142; ALTON BRANSON, NALC 142; NIGEL MCCLEAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:13-cv-00339-DKC) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debbie Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Nathaniel Cohen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Debbie Washington appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Donahoe, No. 8:13-cv-00339-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2014). 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 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