Filed: Dec. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1918 DEBRA MAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STEEL WORKERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00149-GCM) Submitted: December 5, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra Mayes, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1918 DEBRA MAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STEEL WORKERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00149-GCM) Submitted: December 5, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra Mayes, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1918 DEBRA MAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STEEL WORKERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00149-GCM) Submitted: December 5, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra Mayes, Appellant Pro Se. Narendra K. Ghosh, PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Debra Mayes appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss her complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mayes v. United Steel Workers, No. 3:11-cv-00149-GCM (W.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2011). 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
