Filed: Sep. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1593 PATRICIA D. BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-822-5-CV-BO) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1593 PATRICIA D. BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-822-5-CV-BO) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1593 PATRICIA D. BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-822-5-CV-BO) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia D. Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen Coffey Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 action. 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. Baker v. Runyon, No. CA-95-822-5-CV-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 1996). 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
