Court Opinion

ID: 9379169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 21:00:22.608478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.021913
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2257      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2257

        GWENDOLINE ATEMKENG,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., trading as Doctors Community Hospital,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:19-cv-00806-LKG)

        Submitted: January 24, 2023                                       Decided: March 13, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gwendoline Atemkeng, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Maxwell Bernas, Atlanta, Georgia,
        Jay Robert Fries, Baltimore, Maryland, Jacquelyn Lorraine Thompson, FORDHARRISON
        LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2257      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Gwendoline Atemkeng appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee

        summary judgment on her complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

        1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Maryland Fair Employment

        Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t §§ 20-601 to 20-611 (2022). We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

        Atemkeng v. Doctors’ Hosp., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-00806-LKG (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2021). 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

                                                    2