The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-7803•Leila P. Binder v. United States of America
02-7803Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 12, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7803
LEILA P. BINDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; BRENDA F. MOSLEY;
KATHERINE A. BABB; KATHY L. HARRINGTON;
MIGUELA T. GUTIERREZ; MICHAEL S. OSHIKI,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-02-21)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leila P. Binder, Appellant Pro Se. Kent Pendleton Porter, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Leila P. Binder appeals the district court’s orders granting
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss her civil employment action;
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; and denying her second
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Binder v. United States, No. CA-02-21 (E.D.
Va. Sept. 27, 2002; Oct. 25, 2002; Nov. 21, 2002). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.