Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harris v. Wake Cnty Human Svc, 99-1773 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1773 Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1773 SHEILA D. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-286-5-BO) Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: November 5, 1999 Before ERVIN,* NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sheila D. Ha
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1773 SHEILA D. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-286-5-BO) Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: November 5, 1999 Before ERVIN,* NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sheila D. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Shelley Tager Eason, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF WAKE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. * Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sheila D. Harris appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment in favor of Appellee in her employment discrim- ination and tort action. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Wake County Human Servs., No. CA-98-286-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 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
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