Terri Williams v. Kathleen Sebeliu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02527-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999572922]. Mailed to: Terri Williams. [14-2231]

Appeal: 14-2231

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2231

TERRI L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services; ANN TAUBENHEIM, Supervisory Public Health
Advisor, National Institutes of Health, National Heart,
Lung and Blood Institutes, Department of Health and Human
Services;
TIMOTHY
WHEELES,
Acting
Executive
Officer,
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and
Human
Services;
SALLY
MCDONOUGH,
Director
of
Communications, National Institutes of Health, National
Heart, Lung and Blood Institutes, Department of Health and
Human Services,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cv-02527-RWT)

Submitted:

April 15, 2015

Decided:

April 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-2231

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Terri L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2231

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/28/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terri Williams appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2012), Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2012), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29
U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2012).
no reversible error.
stated

by

the

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

district

court.

Williams

v.

Burwell,

8:13-cv-02527-RWT, 2014 WL 5797777 (D. Md. Nov. 5, 2014).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3