# Ta'ati v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery Community College

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 20, 2006 · 171 F. App'x 426

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018798

## Case

- **Full name:** Poopak TA'ATI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 20, 2006
- **Citations:** 171 F. App'x 426
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Williams, Michael, Gregory
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018798

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1510

POOPAK TA’ATI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-
2097-RWT; CA-04-3799-RWT)

Submitted: March 3, 2006 Decided: March 20, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Poopak Ta’ati, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Veronica Burrell, Joann
Robertson, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Poopak Ta’ati appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Defendant on her employment discrimination

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court in the bench hearing of April 18, 2005. See

Ta’ati v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery Community College, Nos.

CA-03-2097-RWT; CA-04-3799-RWT (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2005). 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

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018798. Public record. Not legal advice.