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)
09-1195•Deborah A. Mullins v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City; Charles Krysiak
09-1195Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 3, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1195
DEBORAH A. MULLINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY; CHARLES KRYSIAK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cv-02454-CCB)
Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Stolarz, THE STOLARZ LAW FIRM, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. George A. Nilson, City Solicitor, Gary Gilkey, Chief
Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Mullins appeals the district court’s orders
denying her motion for leave to amend the complaint and granting
the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on Mullins’ claims of
gender discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and tortious
interference with contract and economic relations. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Mullins v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, No. 1:07-cv-02454-CCB
(D. Md. Jan. 20, 2009). 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.