Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Howard v. Town of Chapel Hill, 95-1990 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1990 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1990 E. VICTORIA HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LARRY HOWARD, Plaintiff, versus TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL; ROBERT GODDING, Director; LOIS J. MAGNELL, Transportation Department Operations Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees, and CAL HORTON, Town Manager, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-94-12-1) Su
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1990 E. VICTORIA HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LARRY HOWARD, Plaintiff, versus TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL; ROBERT GODDING, Director; LOIS J. MAGNELL, Transportation Department Operations Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees, and CAL HORTON, Town Manager, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-94-12-1) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. 2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Victoria Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Lee Holland, Raymond Mark Davis, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination action, which alleged violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 (West 1994), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Howard v. Town of Chapel Hill, No. CA-94-12-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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