Starsha Sewell v. WMATA
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for initial hearing en banc (FRAP 35) [1000094086-2] Originating case number: 8:16-cv-02456-GJH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: S Sewell. [17-1632]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STARSHA M. SEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge. (8:16-cv-02456-GJH)
Submitted: September 14, 2017
Decided: September 19, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Gerard J. Stief, Associate General Counsel,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action alleging
discrimination in employment and a conspiracy concerning child custody and denying
her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v.
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:16-cv-02456-GJH (D. Md. July 19 &
Aug. 29, 2016; Mar. 13 & Apr. 28, 2017). We deny the motion for initial hearing en
banc and 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
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?