MITZI DAILEY v. JACOB LEW JOHN KOSKINEN KIRSTEN WIELOBOB SCOTT REISHER KATHERINE HEYDEN LAWRENCE FORD JOSEPH TETI BRANDI JOYNER JENNIFER PEARSON MILISSA RIGGS LEONARD GETZ 90 (2016)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

MITZI E. DAILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JACOB LEW, Secretary of Treasury, Department of Treasury; JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service; KIRSTEN B. WIELOBOB, Internal Revenue Service, Chief, Office of Appeals; SCOTT D. REISHER, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Director, Field Operations East; KATHERINE HEYDEN, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Program Manager, Area 4; LAWRENCE W. FORD, Internal Revenue Service, Supervisory Appeals Officer; JOSEPH D. TETI, Internal Revenue Service, Supervisory Appeals Officer, Area 2; BRANDI A. JOYNER, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals, Program Manager, Area 2; JENNIFER PEARSON, Internal Revenue Service, Agency Wide Shared Services Specialist; MILISSA K. RIGGS, Human Resources Specialist, Human Capital Office; LEONARD L. GETZ, National Treasury Employees Union, Local Chapter 90 President, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1464

Decided: November 04, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Mitzi E. Dailey, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Gregory O'Duden, General Counsel, Julie M. Wilson, Deputy General Counsel, Jessica Horne, Assistant Counsel, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Mitzi E. Dailey appeals the district court's order granting Appellees' motions to dismiss her civil claims against them, including her race and sex and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Dailey's motion for reconsideration of this court's order granting Appellee Getz's motion for leave to file a separate brief and affirm the district court's order. See Dailey v. Lew, No. 1:15-cv-02527-GLR (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2016). 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

PER CURIAM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law