Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01286/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01286-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1286

GERALDINE M. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FOOD EMPLOYERS LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATION AND UNITED FOOD 

AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS PENSION FUND PLAN,

Defendant – Appellee, 

and

KAREN STAFFORD,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:12-

cv-00891-PWG)

Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geraldine M. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Laura O. Aradi, Sharon 

McNeilly Goodman, Barry Steven Slevin, SLEVIN & HART, PC, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-1286 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1286 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Geraldine M. Jones appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing all but one of her claims in her civil complaint and 

granting summary judgment to Appellee on her remaining claim.* 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm. Jones v. Food Emp’rs Labor Relations 

Ass’n & United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Fund Plan, No. 

8:12-cv-00891-PWG (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2012 & Feb 20, 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

 * We previously remanded this case to the district court for 

the limited purpose of determining whether Jones was entitled to 

have her time to file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court 

determined that Jones was entitled to a reopening of the appeal 

period and an extension of the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5). 

Accordingly, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as 

untimely.

Appeal: 14-1286 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 3 of 3