Filed: Aug. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1625 JESSIE B. HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2027-2-18AJ) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1625 JESSIE B. HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2027-2-18AJ) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1625 JESSIE B. HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2027-2-18AJ) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie B. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parkwood Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jessie B. Hayes appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hayes v. Henderson, No. CA-00-2027-2-18AJ (D.S.C. filed Apr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argu- ment 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