Case Name: Cynthia CRITCHFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee, and Datatrac Information Services, Incorporated, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-12
Citations: 82 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 03-1260
Parties: Cynthia CRITCHFIELD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant—Appellee, and Datatrac Information Services, Incorporated, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
Cynthia CRITCHFIELD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant—Appellee, and Datatrac Information Services, Incorporated, Defendant.
No. 03-1260.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 2003.
Decided Dec. 12, 2003.
Robert R. Weed, the Law Offices of Robert R. Weed, Sterling, Virginia, for Appellant.
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Gerard J. Mene, Assistant United States Attorney, Aexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Cynthia Critchfield appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint against the United States Drug Enforcement Agency arising out of the DEA's failure to provide Critchfield with a security clearance or permit her to begin work for its contractor, Datatrec Information Services, prior to issuance of a security clearance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Critchfield v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, No. CA-02-1456-A (E.D.Va. Jan. 28, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED