Frances K. Ingram v. The Baltimore Sun State of Maryland, Commission on Human Relations

Fourth Circuit

Frances K. Ingram v. The Baltimore Sun State of Maryland, Commission on Human Relations

37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34861, 1994 WL 564667

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

Docket94-1580

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1494 (Frances K. Ingram v. The Baltimore Sun State of Maryland, Commission on Human Relations) 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

Frances K. Ingram v. The Baltimore Sun State of Maryland, Commission on Human Relations, 37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34861, 1994 WL 564667 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

37 F.3d 1494
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Frances K. INGRAM, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
The BALTIMORE SUN; State of Maryland, Commission on Human
Relations, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1580.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 1994.
Decided: October 17, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-93-4009-S)

Frances K. Ingram, appellant pro se. Douglas D. Connah, Jr., Nathan Ellis Siegel, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, MD; Lee David Hoshall, MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her complaint which she filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e (1988)). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ingram v. Baltimore Sun, No. CA-93-4009-S (D. Md. Mar. 24, 1994). 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

37 F.3d 1494
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Frances K. INGRAM, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
The BALTIMORE SUN; State of Maryland, Commission on Human
Relations, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1580.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 1994.
Decided: October 17, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-93-4009-S)

Frances K. Ingram, appellant pro se. Douglas D. Connah, Jr., Nathan Ellis Siegel, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, MD; Lee David Hoshall, MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her complaint which she filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e (1988)). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ingram v. Baltimore Sun, No. CA-93-4009-S (D. Md. Mar. 24, 1994). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34861, 1994 WL 564667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frances-k-ingram-v-the-baltimore-sun-state-of-mary-ca4-1994.