Fontell v. MCGEO UFCW Local 1994

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 14, 2011
Docket10-1981
StatusUnpublished

This text of Fontell v. MCGEO UFCW Local 1994 (Fontell v. MCGEO UFCW Local 1994) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fontell v. MCGEO UFCW Local 1994, (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1981

JANICE FONTELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MCGEO UFCW LOCAL 1994; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02526-AW)

Submitted: January 11, 2011 Decided: February 14, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janice Fontell, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Danielle Adkins, Carey Robert Butsavage, BUTSAVAGE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Janice Fontell appeals the district court’s orders

denying her motions to appoint counsel, for leave to file a

second amended complaint, and to join additional parties, and

denying relief on her breach of duty of fair representation

claim and claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 &

Supp. 2010) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 (2006). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Fontell v. MCGEO UFCW Local 1994, No. 8:09-cv-02526-AW (D. Md.

Aug. 5, 2010). Consequently, we deny Fontell’s motion to

appoint counsel. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fontell v. MCGEO UFCW Local 1994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontell-v-mcgeo-ufcw-local-1994-ca4-2011.