Filed: Jun. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1037 KATHY I. RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEVERAGE AIR, a division of Specialty Equipment Manufacturing Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2267-8-24) Submitted: June 18, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1037 KATHY I. RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEVERAGE AIR, a division of Specialty Equipment Manufacturing Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2267-8-24) Submitted: June 18, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1037 KATHY I. RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEVERAGE AIR, a division of Specialty Equipment Manufacturing Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2267-8-24) Submitted: June 18, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven M. Krause, LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. KRAUSE, P.A., Anderson, South Carolina; Mary C. McCormac, Clemson, South Carolina, for Appellant. S. Clay Keim, Jeffrey A. Lehrer, EDWARDS, BALLARD, BISHOP, CLARK, STURM & KEIM, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kathy Riley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment and dismissing her state privacy act and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-2654 (West 1999). We have reviewed the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Riley v. Beverage Air, No. CA-00-2267-8-24 (D.S.C. Nov. 28, 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