Kirk Webster v. James Mattis, No. 18-1259 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1259 KIRK E. WEBSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES MATTIS, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee, and ROBERT CARDILLO, Director, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; JACK W. RICKERT, Assistant General Counsel; JOHN ZIMMERMAN, Supervisory Benefits Specialist; JAMES L. LEE, Deputy General Counsel (EEOC); KENNETH MORSE, Federal Sector Mediator; PATSY COLEMAN, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Director, Resolution Center; THEODORE HARPER, Supervisor, Debt Processing Branch, Defendants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01384-TSE-IDD) Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: July 17, 2018 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirk E. Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kirk E. Webster appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing this action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), for want of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion to strike the response brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Webster v. Mattis, No. 1:17-cv-01384-TSEIDD (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.