Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
CEASAR v. NORD, 332 Fed.Appx. 98 (4th Cir. 2009)
Valery v. CEASAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. NORD, ActingChairman, U.S. Consumer Prod. Safety Commission; United States ofAmerica, Defendants-Appellees., 332 F. App'x 98 (4th Cir. 2009)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-08-24
- Topic
- general
CEASAR v. NORD, 332 Fed.Appx. 98 (4th Cir. 2009) Valery v. CEASAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. NORD, ActingChairman, U.S.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed CEASAR v. NORD, 332 Fed.Appx. 98 (4th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
CEASAR v. NORD,332 Fed.Appx. 98(4th Cir. 2009)
Valery v. CEASAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. NORD, Acting
Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; United States of
America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-1900.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 20, 2009.
Decided: August 24, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, atPage 99Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02641-RWT).
John F. Mercer, Mercer Law Associates, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Marleigh D. Dover, Melissa N. Patterson, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Valery V. Ceasar appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants on her claims of retaliation and employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.Ceasar v.Nord, No. 8:07-cv-02641-RWT (D.Md. July 18, 2008). We grant Appellees' motion to file a supplemental appendix. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.AFFIRMED.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩