Filed: Oct. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1094 SUKCHA THARP, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Drug Enforcement Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00719-GBL-MSN) Submitted: September 15, 2016 Decided: October 5, 2016 Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1094 SUKCHA THARP, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Drug Enforcement Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00719-GBL-MSN) Submitted: September 15, 2016 Decided: October 5, 2016 Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1094
SUKCHA THARP,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Drug Enforcement Agency,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00719-GBL-MSN)
Submitted: September 15, 2016 Decided: October 5, 2016
Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard F. Hawkins, III, HAWKINS LAW FIRM, PC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Andrew S. Han, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sukcha Tharp appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment, on Tharp’s discrimination, harassment and
retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2012), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29
U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2016). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. Tharp v. Lynch, No.
1:15-cv-00719-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2015). 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