Polsby v. Chase ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-1793
    M. MAUREEN POLSBY, M.D.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS CHASE, Dr.; IRWIN J. KOPLIN, Dr.; MARK
    HALLETT, Dr.; DANIEL R. WEINBERGER, Dr.;
    GIOVANNI DICHIRO, Dr.; MARINOS DALAKIS, Dr.;
    RICHARD E. CARSON, Dr.; MURRAY GOLDSTEIN, Dr.,
    in his official capacity as Director of the
    National Institute of Neurologic and Commu-
    nicative Disorders and Stroke; JAMES B.
    WYNGAARDEN, Dr., in his official capacity as
    Director of the National Institute of Health;
    DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
    88-2344-DKC, CA-94-3078, CA-93-3857)
    Submitted:   September 29, 1998           Decided:   October 21, 1998
    Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    M. Maureen Polsby, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen McDermott, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    M. Maureen Polsby, M.D., appeals from the district court’s
    final order granting judgment in favor of the Defendants in her
    employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, as amended. With respect to Polsby’s claims of
    discrimination occurring during her employment at the National
    Institutes of Health, our review of the record discloses no re-
    versible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
    district court. Polsby v. Chase, Nos. CA-88-2344-DKC; CA-94-3078;
    CA-93-3857 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 1996).
    Polsby’s claims regarding post-employment acts of retaliation
    were dismissed by the district court on the basis of this Court’s
    decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil, 
    70 F.3d 325
     (4th Cir. 1995) (en
    banc). The Supreme Court reversed this decision while Polsby’s
    appeal was pending. See Robinson v. Shell Oil, 
    519 U.S. 337
     (1997).
    Nevertheless, any error in applying the former standard was harm-
    less as our review of the record reveals that the evidence failed
    to support her claims of post-employment retaliation. Accordingly,
    we affirm the dismissal of these claims as well. We grant Polsby’s
    motion to supplement her informal brief, deny her motion to place
    her appeal in abeyance, and dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
    3
    rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1793

Filed Date: 10/21/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014