Ronald Owens-Bey v. Carla Rhodes
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RONALD MU'MIN OWENS-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARLA FOSTER RHODES, individually and as Program Administrator-DHR-BCDSS; MARSHA GARRISON, individually and as Unit Administrator-DHR-BCDSS; JERRI TOMSIK SOBUS, Individually and as Personnel Administrator-DHR-BCDSS; SHAWNA CUNNINGHAM, Individually and as a Family Services Supervisor-DHR-BCDSS; SAMUEL CHAMBERS, JR., Individually and as Director-DHR-BCDSS; GINGER SCOTT, Individually and as Acting Appointing Authority-DHR-BCDSS; CHRISTOPHER J. MCCABE, Individually and as Secretary-Maryland Department of Human Resources; CHERYL SIMPSON PARKER, Individually and as Assistant City Solicitor, Baltimore City-DSS; STEPHANIE A. LEWIS, Individually and as Assistant Attorney General-DHRBCDSS; CATHERINE M. SHULTZ, Individually and as Principal Counsel, Department of Human Resources; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06cv-02871-AMD)
September 29, 2009
October 2, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Mu'Min Owens-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General, David Edward Beller, Cathy Ann Dryden, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Todd Russell Chason, Litigation Counsel, Charles Robert Bacharach, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ronald Mu'Min Owens-Bey appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and
denying reconsideration in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens-Bey v. Rhodes, No. 1:06-cv-02871-AMD (D. Md.
Sept. 11, 2008; Sept. 26, 2008). and dispense with oral argument
We deny the motion to expedite because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?