Veda Pryor v. Pete Geren


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998340736-2] Originating case number: 8:09-cv-01366-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998451891] [10-1461]

Download PDF
Veda Pryor v. Pete Geren Doc. 0 Case: 10-1461 Document: 11 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1461 VEDA PRYOR, Plaintiff Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary of the US Army; ROBERT M. FANO, Chief, Civilian Personnel Law Team; EUGENE JOHNSON, Compensation Specialist, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-01366-AW) Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 25, 2010 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Veda Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Justin Friedman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-1461 Document: 11 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Veda Pryor appeals the district court's granting Defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Pryor v. Geren, No. 8:09-cv-01366-AW (D. Md. We further deny Pryor's motion for transcript at We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the district court. Apr. 7, 2010). government expense. facts and legal before contentions the court materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?