Ronald Mu’min Owens-Bey v. Carla Foster Rhodes, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2156
RONALD MU’MIN OWENS-BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CARLA FOSTER RHODES, individually and as Program
Administrator-DHR-BCDSS; MARSHA GARRISON, individually and
as Unit Administrator-DHR-BCDSS; JERRI TOMSIK SOBUS,
Individually and as Personnel Administrator-DHR-BCDSS;
SHAWNA CUNNINGHAM, Individually and as a Family Services
Supervisor-DHR-BCDSS; SAMUEL CHAMBERS, JR., Individually and
as Director-DHR-BCDSS; GINGER SCOTT, Individually and as
Acting Appointing Authority-DHR-BCDSS; CHRISTOPHER J.
MCCABE, Individually and as Secretary-Maryland Department of
Human Resources; CHERYL SIMPSON PARKER, Individually and as
Assistant City Solicitor, Baltimore City-DSS; STEPHANIE A.
LEWIS, Individually and as Assistant Attorney General-DHR-
BCDSS; CATHERINE M. SHULTZ, Individually and as Principal
Counsel, Department of Human Resources; STATE OF MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-
cv-02871-AMD)
Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

Ronald Mu’Min Owens-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Julia Doyle
Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General, David Edward Beller,
Cathy Ann Dryden, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland; Todd Russell Chason, Litigation Counsel,
Charles Robert Bacharach, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN,
HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Mu’Min Owens-Bey appeals the district court’s
orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and
denying reconsideration in his employment discrimination action.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Owens-Bey v. Rhodes, No. 1:06-cv-02871-AMD (D. Md.
Sept. 11, 2008; Sept. 26, 2008). We deny the motion to expedite
and 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

-- 3 of 3 --