Filed: Apr. 25, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1221 PAULA M. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-03-228-5-BO) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paula M. Wilson, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1221 PAULA M. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-03-228-5-BO) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paula M. Wilson, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1221 PAULA M. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-03-228-5-BO) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paula M. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Ann Stone, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paula M. Wilson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant and dismissing her gender discrimination claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wilson v. North Carolina Dep’t of Correction, No. CA-03-228-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2005). Additionally, as the materials contained in the “Appendix” to Wilson’s informal appellate brief were not presented, in their entirety, to the district court, we grant the Defendant’s motion to strike and so strike the “Appendix” from the record. 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 -