Filed: Dec. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1722 CLAIRE J. RIGAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAFEWAY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99- 2160-MJG) Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1722 CLAIRE J. RIGAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAFEWAY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99- 2160-MJG) Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Me..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1722
CLAIRE J. RIGAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SAFEWAY, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99-
2160-MJG)
Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Melnick, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Joseph P.
Harkins, Margarita D. Santos, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Claire J. Rigas 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 substantially on the
reasoning of the district court, see Rigas v. Safeway, Inc., No.
CA-99-2160-MJG (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2000), to the extent that it does
not conflict with our opinion in Edelman v. Lynchburg College,
228
F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2000). 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