Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Family Health Centers, 03-2268 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2268 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jun. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2268 PAMELA MARIA JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS, INCORPORATED; ARTHUR KENNEDY, Vice President of Clinical Affairs; AL HANNA, Vice President of Human Resources; CAROLYN EMMANUEL MCCLAIN, CEO and President, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-4796) Submitted: March 31,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2268 PAMELA MARIA JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS, INCORPORATED; ARTHUR KENNEDY, Vice President of Clinical Affairs; AL HANNA, Vice President of Human Resources; CAROLYN EMMANUEL MCCLAIN, CEO and President, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-4796) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Maria Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Morris Boyd, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; John Robert Murphy, John Martin Grantland, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pamela Maria Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge granting summary judgment to Defendants on her claims of failure to accommodate, gender discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, hostile work environment, and state law claims. She also appeals the district court’s denial of her motions to vacate, and for protective and restraining orders. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Family Health Ctrs., Inc., No. CA-01-4796 (D.S.C. Aug. 12 & Sept. 24, 2003). 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