Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jimenez v. Astrue, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment to defendants in an employment discrimination case brought by Rosemary Jimenez. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in that court's opinion dated November 20, 2007. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before it.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1182

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment to defendants in an employment discrimination case brought by Rosemary Jimenez. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in that court's opinion dated November 20, 2007. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before it.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Jimenez v. Astrue, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment to defendants in an employment discrimination case brought by Rosemary Jimenez. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in that court's opinion dated November 20, 2007. The Court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before it.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-1182

    ROSEMARY L. JIMENEZ,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL
    J.
    ASTRUE,
    Commissioner
    of
    Social
    Security
    Administration; NEIL ANTHONY GORDON MCPHIE, United States Merit
    System Protection Board; LINDA M. SPRINGER, United States Office
    of Personnel Management,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06cv-03228-JFM)

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2008

    Decided:

    August 4, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER,* Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rosemary L. Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Samuel Gordon, OFFICE


    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Jennifer Wright Schick, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C.


    46(d).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rosemary L. Jimenez appeals the district courts order
    granting defendants motion for summary judgment in this employment
    discrimination action.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    the district court.

    Jimenez v. Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-03228-JFM (D.

    Md., Nov. 20, 2007).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like