Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Taylor v. K Mart Corporation, 00-1663 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1663 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1663 CARRIE C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K MART CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-216-5-BR3) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carrie C. Taylor, Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1663 CARRIE C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K MART CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-216-5-BR3) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carrie C. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Phillip McGuire, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina; Linda Morris Fox, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carrie C. Taylor appeals the district court’s order granting K Mart’s motion for summary judgment on her employment discrim- ination complaint. 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 Taylor v. K Mart Corp., No. CA-99-216-5-BR3 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2000). K Mart’s motion to strike is granted. 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