Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Royster v. NHP Management Co, 01-2193 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2193 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2193 JESSIE ROYSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NHP MANAGEMENT COMPANY; APARTMENT INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 290-L) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: May 16, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2193 JESSIE ROYSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NHP MANAGEMENT COMPANY; APARTMENT INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 290-L) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: May 16, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edith A. Lawson-Jackson, E. A. LAWSON-JACKSON & ASSOCIATES, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan W. Greenbaum, Adrian V. Nelson, II, Gina Janeiro Lisher, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jessie Royster appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). 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. Royster v. NHP Management Co., No. CA-00-290-L (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2001). 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