U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2011

Monk v. Donahoe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided January 13, 2011 · Motz, Shedd, Duncan

407 F. App'x 675

Counsel

Ronnie Monk, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Elston, Litigation Counsel, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C.; George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.

Blackburn v. Ineos Automotive Americas LLC (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2025)
Jackson v. Shanahan (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2020)
Mani v. Becerra (District Court, D. Maryland 2025)
Wolfe v. Columbia College (District Court, D. Maryland 2021)
Sharkey v. Fortress Systems International, Inc. (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2020)
Squires v. Merit Systems Protection Board (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2019)
Kirkland v. James (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Monk appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service on Monk’s employment discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not commit reversible error when it granted summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. * See Monk v. Potter, No. 4:09-cv-00073-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. June 15, 2010). 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.

Because a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel, Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986), we decline to consider Monk's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We also reject Monk’s claim that the Postal Service violated its own procedural rules when it disciplined him for tardiness, unauthorized overtime, and unauthorized leave because Monk raises the claim for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.