Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bullard v. Panasonic Corp NA, 06-1311 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1311 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 08, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1311 MARYANN BULLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:05-cv-00269-HCM) Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. MaryA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1311 MARYANN BULLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:05-cv-00269-HCM) Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. MaryAnn Bullard, Appellant Pro Se. Linda Sue Laibstain, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, HOFHEIMER & NUSBAUM, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; David Richard Kresser, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: MaryAnn Bullard appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint alleging employment discrimination, retaliatory discharge, sexual harassment and disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bullard v. Panasonic Corp. of North Am., No. 2:05-cv-00269-HCM (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2006). 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