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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1666 ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evangelist, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OLSTEN KIMBERLY QUALITYCARE,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 Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1666 ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evangelist, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OLSTEN KIMBERLY QUALITYCARE,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 Affirmed by unpublished p..
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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1666 ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evangelist, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OLSTEN KIMBERLY QUALITYCARE,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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