Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bellamy v. Horry County School District, 09-1901 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1901 Visitors: 36
Filed: Nov. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1901 JUSTINE BELLAMY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HORRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellee, and JOE DOWLING, in his individual and official capacity as director of career and technology for Horry County School District; RONNIE BURGESS, in his individual and official capacity as principal of St. James High School, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1901 JUSTINE BELLAMY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HORRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellee, and JOE DOWLING, in his individual and official capacity as director of career and technology for Horry County School District; RONNIE BURGESS, in his individual and official capacity as principal of St. James High School, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Thomas E. Rogers, III, Magistrate Judge. (4:07-cv-02727-TER) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Justine Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Kennedy Barlow, Kenneth Lendren Childs; Jasmine Stanetta Rogers, CHILDS & HALLIGAN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Justine Bellamy appeals from the orders entered by the district court and the magistrate judge in favor of Defendants in her action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and by the magistrate judge. Bellamy v. Horry Co. Sch. Dist., No. 4:07-cv-02727-TER (D.S.C. July 13, 2009 & July 28, 2009). We deny Bellamy’s motion for transcripts at government expense and 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