Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01911/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1911

ROSE URE MEZU,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; ARMADA W. GRANT, in her personal 

capacity and as Director, Human Resources/Payroll for Morgan 

State University; DOLAN HUBBARD, in his personal capacity 

and as Chair, Department of English and Language Arts, 

Morgan State University,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-02855-WMN; 1:11-cv-03072-WMN)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Valerie Ibe, LAW OFFICES OF C. VALERIE IBE, Pikesville, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of 

Maryland, Thomas Faulk, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1911 Doc: 81 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rose Ure Mezu appeals the district court’s judgment and its 

order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 

motions, after a jury found in Defendants’ favor on Mezu’s 

claims alleging retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 

2000e-17 (2012), and retaliation in violation of, and 

interference with her rights guaranteed by, the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012). We have 

considered the parties’ arguments and have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment and order. Mezu v. Morgan State 

Univ., Nos. 1:09-cv-02855-WMN; 1:11-cv-03072-WMN (D. Md. filed 

Jun. 13, 2014, entered Jun. 23, 2014; Aug. 21, 2014. 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

Appeal: 14-1911 Doc: 81 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 2 of 2