Robinson v. Harvey, No. 07-1818 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1818 PAMELA ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANCIS J. HARVEY, Secretary, Department of the Army, Successor to R. Les Brownlee, Defendant - Appellee, and CHINE I. CHANG, Department of the Army; DAVID D. SKATRUD, Department of the Army; DAVID M. MANN, Department of the Army; WALTER D. BACH, Department of the Army; MANIE P. CURRIN, Manie P. Currin and Associates; General Court Reporting Service; CARLTON M. HADDEN, U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; REGINA N. STEPHENS, U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; JOHN M. MILLER, Department of the Army; DIANA J. BLEVINS, Department of the Defense, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00355) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Pamela Robinson appeals the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s report and recommendation to grant Defendant s summary judgment motion on her claims of race and gender discrimination, sexual and racial hostile work environment harassment, and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and denying her second motion to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Robinson v. Harvey, No. 1:05-cv-00355 (M.D.N.C. filed June 21, 2007; entered June 22, 2007). 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 -

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.