Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2481 ESSIE JEANETTE DELANEY MANNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-685) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2481 ESSIE JEANETTE DELANEY MANNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-685) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2481 ESSIE JEANETTE DELANEY MANNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-685) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Essie Jeanette Delaney Manns, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Essie Jeanette Delaney Manns appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimina- tion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. See Manns v. West, No. CA-99-685 (W.D. Va. Oct. 24, 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
