MichelleLynette Hughes v. INOVA Health Care Services

714 F. App'x 253
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 7, 2018
Docket17-1915
StatusUnpublished

This text of 714 F. App'x 253 (MichelleLynette Hughes v. INOVA Health Care Services) 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
MichelleLynette Hughes v. INOVA Health Care Services, 714 F. App'x 253 (4th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

MichelleLynette Hughes appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her complaint alleging disability discrimination and retaliation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), and retaliation, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Hughes v. INOVA Health Care Servs., No. 1:16-cv-00674-CMH-MSN, 2017 WL 2785420 (E.D. Va. filed June 26, 2017 & entered June 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

We reject Hughes’ argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court judge was biased due to a financial conflict of interest. See Weiss v. Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 544 Pension Tr., 719 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 1983) (deeming untimely argument that trial judge was biased based on financial conflict of interest because party did not show "good cause why he did not file an affidavit requesting the trial judge to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 144” or "exceptional circumstances why [court] should consider for the first time on appeal whether the trial judge should have disqualified himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455”).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 F. App'x 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michellelynette-hughes-v-inova-health-care-services-ca4-2018.