Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Olsten Kimberly, 97-1666 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1666 Visitors: 34
Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1666 ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evangelist, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OLSTEN KIMBERLY QUALITYCARE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-3250-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 12, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1666 ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evangelist, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OLSTEN KIMBERLY QUALITYCARE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-3250-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 12, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosalie T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Thomas, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina; Gregory Scott Richters, IRVIN, STANFORD & KESSLER, Atlanta, Georgia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. 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. Johnson v. Olsten Kimberly Qualitycare, No. CA-96-3250-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May 8, 1997). We dis- pense 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