Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cavett v. Rumsfeld, 06-1738 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1738 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jan. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1738 EVELINA R. CAVETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cv-00109-F) Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1738 EVELINA R. CAVETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cv-00109-F) Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest J. Wright, WRIGHT LAW FIRM, Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Evelina R. Cavett appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, on Cavett’s claims of race, color and national origin, hostile work environment, harassment and discriminatory refusal to rehire, claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 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 Cavett v. Rumsfeld, No. 7:05-cv-00109-F (E.D.N.C. May 25, 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