Renee Okon v. Montgomery County Council

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Renee Okon v. Montgomery County Council

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2249

RENEE IMEH OKON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL; MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, (WMATA); VALERIE ERVIN, Montgomery County Council President; ISIAH LEGGETT, Montgomery County Executive; JOSEPH E. GODBOUT; JEANIE GODBOUT; ROBERT MEDBERRY; VIRGINIA MEDBERRY; STEVE HAYES, Real Estate Specialist; SHRIDHAR GONDALEKAR, Architect; PATRICIA VIA, Chief Litigator; EILEEN BASAMAN, County Attorney; PAUL LEONARD, Associate Attorney; CYNTHIA BRENNEMAN, Director of Real Estate; TIMOTHY L. FIRESTINE, Chief Administrative Officer; MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01824-JFM)

Submitted: February 7, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Renee Imeh Okon, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Lisehora Kane, Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Gerard J. Stief, Associate General Counsel, Washington, D.C.; Timothy Brooks Hyland, Mary C. Lombardo, STEIN, SPERLING BENNETT, DE JONG, SRISCOLL & GREENFEIG, PC, Rockville, Maryland; Eric Scott Hartwig, MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Renee Imeh Okon appeals the district court’s order

dismissing this action alleging a violation of Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Okon v. Montgomery Cnty. Council,

No. 8:11-cv-01824-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2011). 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished