From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valderrama v. Honeywell

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Feb 25, 2008
267 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2008)

Summary

describing MCCR under its previous name

Summary of this case from Kyles v. Wendy's Int'l, LLC

Opinion

No. 07-1700.

Submitted: February 21, 2008.

Decided: February 25, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00747-BEI.).

Mariela Valderrama, Appellant Pro Se. Rafael E. Morell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Mariela Valderrama appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her employment discrimination action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) and state law. Valderrama also appeals the district court's orders denying her plea for leave to renew or to reopen motion for summary judgment and her motion to reconsider the motion to file a sur-reply, in which she sought reconsideration of the court's order granting summary judgment. This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment may only be granted when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Valderrama v. Honeywell Tech. Solutions, Inc., 473 F.Supp.2d 658 (D. Md. filed Feb. 14, 2007 entered Feb. 15, 2007; Apr. 5, 2007 entered Apr. 6, 2007). We deny Valderrama's pending motion for mandamus relief. 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.


Summaries of

Valderrama v. Honeywell

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Feb 25, 2008
267 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2008)

describing MCCR under its previous name

Summary of this case from Kyles v. Wendy's Int'l, LLC
Case details for

Valderrama v. Honeywell

Case Details

Full title:Mariela VALDERRAMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 25, 2008

Citations

267 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Young v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City

However, this period is extended to 300 days in a deferral state. See Valderrama v. Honeywell Tech. Sols.,…

Yampierre v. Balt. Police Dep't

This period is extended to 300 days in a deferral state, such as Maryland. See Garnes v. Maryland,…