19 F.3d 12

Emilija RIEKSTNIECE, Doctor, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Dr. Frank E. Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration 1985-1990; Kathryn T. Vengazo, Chief, Employee Relations Branch, Division of Human Resources Management; Robert W. Sauer, Director, Division of Human Resources Management; Carl C. Peck, M.D., Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Gerald F. Meyer, Deputy Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Robert A. Bell, Director, Office of Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Robert J. Temple, M.D., Director, Office of Drug Evaluation I, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Philip G. Walters, M.D., Deputy Director, Division of Radiopharmaceutical, Surgical and Dental Drug Products; Joseph K. Inscoe, PhD, Supervisory Pharmacologist, Division of Surgical Dental Drug Products; Clyde G. Oberlander, Pharmacologist, Division of Pharmaceutical, Surgical and Dental Drug Products; Dou Huey Jean, PhD, Pharmacologist, Division of Pilot Drug Evaluation; Jane Bell, Lung and Blood Institute, Molecular Disease Branch, National Institutes of Health, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-1460.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 3, 1994.
Decided: March 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-90-3281-JFC, CA-91-2939-JFM)

Emilija Riekstniece, Appellant Pro Se.

Donna Carol Sanger, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief in this action challenging her discharge from federal employment. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Riekstniece v. Shalala, Nos. CA-90-3281-JFM, CA-91-2939-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 9, 1993). 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. The motion to expedite consideration of this appeal and for production of inaccurate records is denied.