Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Knox v. Caci Intl Inc, 97-1287 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1287 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 29, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1287 RITA KNOX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CACI INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1496-A) Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1287 RITA KNOX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CACI INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1496-A) Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rita Knox, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Augustine Carter, KUTAK, ROCK, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss her discrimination action as a sanction for falsifying a document and making a false representation to the court. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Knox v. CACI International, Inc., No. CA-96-1496-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 1997). We decline to accept the Appellee's suggestion, however, that we order Appellant to show cause why she should not be sanctioned under Fed. R. App. P. 38. 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
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