Filed: Dec. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1823 ELLA M. MICHAUX, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General; CEO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William N. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01949-WMN) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ella M. Mich
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1823 ELLA M. MICHAUX, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General; CEO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William N. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01949-WMN) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ella M. Micha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1823 ELLA M. MICHAUX, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General; CEO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William N. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01949-WMN) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ella M. Michaux, Appellant Pro Se. Molissa Heather Farber, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ella M. Michaux appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action pursuant to the parties’ settlement. On appeal, Michaux does not challenge the binding nature of the settlement and fails to provide any reason for her failure to timely move to reopen the case in district court. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
