Orisha Kammefa, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Maryland Department of Personnel, As an Official Stategovernment Agency; Margaret Embardino, Personaldesignee, Personally and Officially,defendant Appellees.orisha Kammefa, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings, Collectively;laurie Bennett, Administrative Law Judge,personally and Officially, Defendant Appellees, 19 F.3d 11 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 19 F.3d 11 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted Feb. 17, 1994. Decided March 7, 1994

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-2971, CA-93-2972).

Orisha Kammefa, appellant pro se.

D. Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Orisha Kammefa appeals the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination actions as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.*  Kammefa v. Maryland Dep't of Personnel, No. CA-93-2971 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 1993); Kammefa v. Maryland Office of Admin. Hearings, No. CA-93-2972 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 1993). 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

 *

We also note that because neither of these agencies were Kammefa's employer, the district court's dismissal of Kammefa's Title VII claims against them was proper. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (1988), 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e(f) (West Supp.1993)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.