Mickens v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Mission Systems & Systems (MS2) , 501 F. App'x 266 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1856
JANECE MICKENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION MISSION SYSTEMS & SYSTEMS (MS2),
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01117-LMB-TCB)
Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janece Mickens, Appellant Pro Se. Joleen Okun, OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janece Mickens appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin
Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”) in Mickens’ employment
discrimination action. We affirm.
Mickens first asserts that the magistrate and district
court judges exhibited bias against her because of her pro se
status. After reviewing the available record, we conclude that
the instances Mickens notes in her informal brief were nothing
more than the “judge[s’] ordinary efforts at courtroom
administration[,]” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556
(1994), and provide no basis for concluding that the judges
exhibited any bias against Mickens.
As to Mickens’ remaining arguments on appeal, we have
thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Lockheed
Martin for the reasons stated by the district court. Mickens v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 1:11-cv-01117-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. July
5, 2012). 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