Ronnie Monk v. John Potter, No. 10-1943 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1943 RONNIE MONK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:09-cv-00073-MSD-DEM) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 13, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 discrimination States claims, Postal Service brought pursuant on Monk s to Title employment VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 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. order. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court s See Monk v. Potter, No. 4:09-cv-00073-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. June 15, 2010). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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 126, 127 (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). 2

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.