Ridgely v. Chao
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHEL RIDGELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC)
October 29, 2007
December 6, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Lauren A. Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michel granting Ridgely appeals the district on court's order
discrimination and retaliation claims.
Ridgely first challenges
the transfer of his civil action from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. However, we do not
have jurisdiction to review this issue because Ridgely failed to challenge the change of venue in the Eastern District of Virginia. Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we dismiss Ridgely's appeal as to that issue. Ridgely next contends the district court improperly
concluded that he failed to exhaust his retaliation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we Ridgely v. We
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Chao, No. 1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC (E.D. Va., Dec. 29, 2006).
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.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?