Filed: Aug. 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2528 DILLARD’S, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARLENE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2522) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine Dudley Helms, William L. Duda,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2528 DILLARD’S, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARLENE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2522) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine Dudley Helms, William L. Duda, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2528 DILLARD’S, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARLENE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2522) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine Dudley Helms, William L. Duda, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Allen D. Smith, Thomas K. Barlow, CHILDS & HALLIGAN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dillard’s Incorporated appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Johnson. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dillard’s Inc. v. Johnson, No. CA-03-2522 (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 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 -
