From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tamar v. Geico Cas. Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 24, 2012
471 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-2395

04-24-2012

SIMHAH TAMAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees.

Simhah Tamar, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Jacob Borovsky, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Reston, Virginia; Bruce Stephen Harrison, Fiona W. Ong, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-01067-CMH-IDD)

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simhah Tamar, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Jacob Borovsky, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Reston, Virginia; Bruce Stephen Harrison, Fiona W. Ong, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Simhah Tamar appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing her employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tamar v. Geico Cas. Co., No. 1:10-cv-01067-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2011). 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

Tamar v. Geico Cas. Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 24, 2012
471 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Tamar v. Geico Cas. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SIMHAH TAMAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 24, 2012

Citations

471 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2012)