Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carroll v. NC Dept Health, 01-1967 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1967 Visitors: 38
Filed: Oct. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1967 MARGARET V. CARROLL; SHIRLEY J. HARRIS; WANDA L. MITCHELL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES; WALTER B. JONES ALCOHOL DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-159-4-H) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: Oct
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1967 MARGARET V. CARROLL; SHIRLEY J. HARRIS; WANDA L. MITCHELL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES; WALTER B. JONES ALCOHOL DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-159-4-H) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret V. Carroll, Shirley J. Harris, Wanda L. Mitchell, Appel- lants Pro Se. Dorothy Powers, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants Margaret V. Carroll, Wanda L. Mitchell, and Shirley J. Harris appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellees Walter B. Jones Alcohol and Drug Treatment Center and its operator, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Appellants alleged racial discrimination, disparate treatment, a hostile working environment, and retaliation based on failure to promote and other alleged acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the briefs and joint appendix in this case as well as the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carroll v. North Carolina Dep’t of Health, No. CA-00-159-4-H (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2001). 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
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