Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01353/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brinkley

Joseph Clocker

Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
Appellee
James Fox

Larry Hogan

Brenda Miller

Stephen T. Moyer

Sheron Thornton
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1353

SHERON THORNTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, 

(DPSCS),

Defendant - Appellee,

and

STEPHEN T. MOYER, Secretary; JOSEPH CLOCKER, Director of Parole and 

Probation; BRENDA MILLER, Human Resources, DPSCS; JAMES FOX, 

Employee Relations, Department of Budget and Management; LARRY HOGAN, 

Governor; SECRETARY BRINKLEY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Albert David Copperthite, Magistrate Judge. (1:16-cv-03028-ADC)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1353 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/12/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Sheron Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa O’Mara Arnquist, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1353 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/12/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Sheron Thornton appeals the magistrate judge’s* order granting summary judgment 

to her former employer on her claims that she was retaliated against for opposing race and 

age discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2018), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Thornton v. 

Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:16-cv-03028-ADC (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2019). 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

 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2018).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1353 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/12/2020 Pg: 3 of 3