Ford v. Simms ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-2420
    BARBARA JEAN FORD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STUART    O.   SIMMS,   Secretary,    Maryland
    Department of Public Safety and Correctional
    Services; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
    AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; STATE OF MARYLAND;
    GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS, Assistant Warden of
    Eastern Correctional Institution; RALPH LOGAN,
    Warden, Baltimore City Detention Center;
    EDMUND O’LEARY, Division of Corrections,
    Internal Investigative Unit Headquarters; DALE
    MCCLOUD, Maryland Department of Public Safety
    and  Correctional   Services;   LAURA   RIEKEN
    DORSEY, Eastern Correctional Institution,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
    99-3580-JFM)
    Submitted:   June 23, 2003                    Decided:   July 8, 2003
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN, & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury,
    Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General,
    Scott S. Oakley, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Barbara Jean Ford appeals the district court’s orders denying
    her motion to amend her complaint and granting Appellees’ motion
    for summary judgment on one Title VII claim following a remand from
    this court.     See Ford v. Simms, 
    2001 WL 1598078
     (4th Cir. Dec. 14,
    2001) (No. 00-1649) (unpublished). We find no error in the district
    court’s orders and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.   See Ford v. Simms, No. CA-99-3580-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2002,
    and Oct. 31, 2002).           We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and   legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented    in   the
    materials      before   the    court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-2420

Filed Date: 7/8/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021