Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Janece MICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION MISSION SYSTEMS & SYSTEMS (MS2), Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-1856.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.
    Decided: Dec. 26, 2012.
    Janece Mickens, Appellant Pro Se. Jo-leen Okun, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janece Mickens appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”) in Mickens’ employment discrimination action. We affirm.

Mickens first asserts that the magistrate and district court judges exhibited bias against her because of her pro se status. After reviewing the available record, we conclude that the instances Mickens notes in her informal brief were nothing more than the “judge[s’] ordinary efforts at courtroom administration[,]” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994), and provide no basis for concluding that the judges exhibited any bias against Mickens.

As to Mickens’ remaining arguments on appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Lockheed Martin for the reasons stated by the district court. Mickens v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 1:11-cv-01117-LMB-TCB, 2012 WL 2673148 (E.D.Va. July 5, 2012). 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.