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)
18-1259•Kirk E. Webster v. JAMES MATTIS, Secretary of Defense
18-1259Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 17, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1259
KIRK E. WEBSTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES MATTIS, Secretary of Defense,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROBERT CARDILLO, Director, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency;
JACK W. RICKERT, Assistant General Counsel; JOHN ZIMMERMAN,
Supervisory Benefits Specialist; JAMES L. LEE, Deputy General Counsel
(EEOC); KENNETH MORSE, Federal Sector Mediator; PATSY COLEMAN,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Director, Resolution Center;
THEODORE HARPER, Supervisor, Debt Processing Branch,
Defendants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01384-TSE-IDD)
Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: July 17, 2018
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kirk E. Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Kirk E. Webster appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and dismissing this action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), for want of
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion to strike the response brief and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Webster v. Mattis, No. 1:17-cv-01384-TSE-
IDD (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2018). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.