Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1226 SHUNDA T. FRANCIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-968-3) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1226 SHUNDA T. FRANCIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-968-3) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1226 SHUNDA T. FRANCIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-968-3) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shunda T. Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shunda T. Francis appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Francis v. Virginia, No. CA-03-968-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2004). 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 -
