Ronnie Monk v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1943
RONNIE MONK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:09-cv-00073-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 13, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Monk, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Elston, Litigation
Counsel, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; George
Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Monk appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster General of
the United States Postal Service on Monk’s employment
discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that the
district court did not commit reversible error when it granted
summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order.* See Monk v. Potter, No. 4:09-cv-00073-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.
June 15, 2010). 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
* Because a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional
or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel,
Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 126, 127 (5th
Cir. 1986), we decline to consider Monk’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. We also reject Monk’s claim that the
Postal Service violated its own procedural rules when it
disciplined him for tardiness, unauthorized overtime, and
unauthorized leave because Monk raises the claim for the first
time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).

-- 2 of 2 --