Filed: Mar. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2617 HETTIE L. DULA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 99-2618 HETTIE L. DULA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-1817-2, CA-97-1818-2) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2617 HETTIE L. DULA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 99-2618 HETTIE L. DULA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-1817-2, CA-97-1818-2) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WIL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2617 HETTIE L. DULA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 99-2618 HETTIE L. DULA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-1817-2, CA-97-1818-2) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hettie L. Dula, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hettie L. Dula appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her actions filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), and denying her motions to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dula v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. CA-99-1817-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29 & Nov. 23, 1999); Dula v. Virginia Employment Comm’n, No. CA-99-1818-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 1999 & Nov. 23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2