Filed: Apr. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2336 LOURDES IGLESIAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00008-MSD-FBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lourdes Iglesias, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2336 LOURDES IGLESIAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00008-MSD-FBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lourdes Iglesias, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2336 LOURDES IGLESIAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00008-MSD-FBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lourdes Iglesias, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsey Hager McGinnis, LITTLER MENDELSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lourdes Iglesias appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her claims against it. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Iglesias v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 2:09-cv-00008-MSD-FBS (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2009). 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
