Alvia Lacy v. National Railroad Passenger Co
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999521834-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00179-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999568515]. Mailed to: Chowdhry, Lacy. [15-1013]
Appeal: 15-1013
Doc: 15
Filed: 04/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1013
ALVIA L. LACY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL
TAYLOR,
RAILROAD
PASSENGER
CORPORATION,
Amtrak;
LARRY
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00179-RDB)
Submitted:
April 16, 2015
Decided:
April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvia L. Lacy, Appellant Pro Se. Kaiser H. Chowdhry, William J.
Delany, Andrew George Sakallaris, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1013
Doc: 15
Filed: 04/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Alvia L. Lacy appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (2012).
have
reviewed
the
record
Accordingly,
although
pauperis,
affirm
court.
we
we
for
and
grant
the
find
no
reversible
leave
to
proceed
reasons
stated
by
the
We
error.
in
forma
district
Lacy v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 1:14-cv-00179-
RDB (D. Md. Dec. 8, 2014).
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the 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?