Filed: Mar. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1851 LINDA I. VALERINO, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity as United States Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00089-TSE-JFA) Submitted: February 5, 2015 Decided: March 30, 2015 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1851 LINDA I. VALERINO, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity as United States Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00089-TSE-JFA) Submitted: February 5, 2015 Decided: March 30, 2015 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1851
LINDA I. VALERINO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity as United
States Attorney General,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00089-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: February 5, 2015 Decided: March 30, 2015
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda I. Valerino, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Anne Short, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linda I. Valerino appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Valerino’s
claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, and violations
of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2012). Valerino also
challenges several of the district court’s orders denying her
motions for permission to file documents electronically, for
recusal of the district court judge, for transfer of venue, and
granting in part the Appellee’s motion for a protective order
from further discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court at the hearing on the Appellee’s summary
judgment motion on July 25, 2014 and in its various underlying
orders. 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