Janece Mickens v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 12-1856 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1856 JANECE MICKENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION MISSION SYSTEMS & SYSTEMS (MS2), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cv-01117-LMB-TCB) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janece Mickens, Appellant Pro Se. Joleen Okun, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Janece granting Mickens summary Corporation appeals judgment ( Lockheed discrimination action. the in favor Martin ) in district of court s Lockheed Mickens order Martin employment We affirm. Mickens first asserts that the magistrate and district court judges exhibited bias against her because of her pro se status. After reviewing the available record, we conclude that the instances Mickens notes in her informal brief were nothing more than the judge[s ] ordinary efforts at courtroom administration[,] Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556 (1994), and provide no basis for concluding that the judges exhibited any bias against Mickens. As to Mickens remaining arguments on appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Lockheed Martin for the reasons stated by the district court. Mickens v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 1:11-cv-01117-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. July 5, 2012). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.