Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2161 WINFRED F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA POWER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-4213-WMN) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winfred F.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2161 WINFRED F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA POWER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-4213-WMN) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winfred F. N..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2161 WINFRED F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA POWER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-4213-WMN) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winfred F. Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. James Patrick Gillece, Jr., MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Winfred F. Nicholson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nicholson v. Virginia Power, No. CA-98- 4213-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 11, 1999). 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
