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)
17-2083•STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
17-2083Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 24, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2083
STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-02457-PX)
Submitted: January 22, 2018 Decided: January 24, 2018
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Molissa Heather Farber, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Joel William Ruderman, PENSION
BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and denying Sewell’s motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Commodity Futures
Trading Comm’n, No. 8:16-cv-02457-PX (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2017; Sept. 12, 2017). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.