Filed: Sep. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1063 COASTIVEE TENNANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRI-STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntingon. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-1046-3) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1063 COASTIVEE TENNANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRI-STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntingon. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-1046-3) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1063 COASTIVEE TENNANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRI-STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntingon. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-1046-3) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Coastivee Tennant, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan Rex Cokeley, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 complaint. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tennant v. Tri-State Transit Auth., No. CA-92-1046-3 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 1995). 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
