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)
16-1356•Mary M. Harris v. State of Maryland; Maryland Judiciary; Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
16-1356Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 1, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1356
MARY M. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND JUDICIARY; CIRCUIT COURT FOR
BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Official Capacity; LEE ROBINSON, Manager
for Human Employment Relations; CHERYL A. LOTZ, Manager for
Courtroom Clerks; DANIEL SMITH, Supervisor of Courtroom
Clerks Division,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02579-JFM)
Submitted: September 30, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Mary M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney
General, Michele J. McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant
Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Mary M. Harris appeals the district court’s orders granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Harris’
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error.∗ Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Maryland, No.
1:13-cv-02579-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2016). We deny Appellees’
motion for leave to file a surreply. 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
∗ In her informal brief, Harris fails to challenge the
district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration and,
thus, forfeits review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)
(“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the
informal brief.”); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014) (noting importance of informal brief and Rule 34(b)).
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.