Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carla Spencer v. Town of Bedford, 19-1665 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1665 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1665 CARLA BEELS SPENCER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWN OF BEDFORD | TOWN OF BEDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:18-cv-00031-NKM-RSB) Submitted: March 30, 2020 Decided: April 15, 2020 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1665 CARLA BEELS SPENCER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWN OF BEDFORD | TOWN OF BEDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:18-cv-00031-NKM-RSB) Submitted: March 30, 2020 Decided: April 15, 2020 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Strelka, L. Leigh R. Strelka, N. Winston West, IV, Brittany M. Haddox, STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeremy E. Carroll, GUYNN WADDELL CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carla Beels Spencer appeals the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting Defendant summary judgment on Spencer’s claims stemming from her 2016 employment termination. We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Spencer v. Town of Bedford, No. 6:18-cv-00031-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018; May 23, 2019). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer