Deborah Harrison Khatana v. WMATA


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000059253-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01664-PWG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000123654]. Mailed to: Deborah Harrison Khatana. [17-1357]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1357 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1357 DEBORAH HARRISON KHATANA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee, and JAME T. WYNN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01664-PWG) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah Harrison Khatana, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kelly Guss, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Appeal: 17-1357 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/24/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-1357 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/24/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Deborah Harrison Khatana appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Khatana’s employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Khatana v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:15-cv-01664-PWG (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2017). 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. DISMISSED 3

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?