Case Name: Starsha M. SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-19
Citations: 697 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 17-1632
Parties: Starsha M. SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
Starsha M. SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1632
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 14, 2017
Decided: September 19, 2017
Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard J. Stief, Associate General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court's orders dismissing this action alleging discrimination in employment and a conspiracy concerning child custody and denying her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:16-cv-02456-GJH (D. Md. July 19 & Aug. 29, 2016; Mar. 13 & Apr. 28, 2017). We deny the motion for initial hearing en banc and 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