Linda Valerino v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999130391-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01124-GBL-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999196775]. [13-1390]--[Edited 09/19/2013 by BHR]

Appeal: 13-1390

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/19/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1390

LINDA I. VALERINO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
DORA M. ALVARADO; JEFFREY L. BOHN; MARGARITA
TAM M. WYATT, and all others similarly situated,

V.

SERNA;

Plaintiffs,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity as United
States Attorney General,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01124-GBL-JFA)

Submitted:

August 29, 2013

Decided:

September 19, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda I. Valerino, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Elizabeth Cross,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Kevin J. Mikolashek, R.

Appeal: 13-1390

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/19/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Joseph Sher, Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant
Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

United

States

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1390

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/19/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Linda I. Valerino appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary
judgment

in

this

employment

discrimination

case

arising

from

Valerino’s employment with the United States Marshals Service.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court in its thorough opinion.

Valerino v. Holder, No.

1:11-cv-01124-GBL-JFA

20,

(E.D.

Va.

Feb.

2013).

We

deny

Valerino’s motion for leave to file exhibits.

We dispense with

oral

legal

contentions

are

before

this

and

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

court

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3