Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sansone v. MCI, 96-2598 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2598 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2598 CAROL A. SANSONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-397-A) Submitted: April 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carole A. Sansone,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2598 CAROL A. SANSONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-397-A) Submitted: April 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carole A. Sansone, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Neal Barkus, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Washington, D. C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carol A. Sansone appeals a district court order granting De- fendant summary judgment in an action in which she alleges breach of contract and employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000e to 2000e- 17 (1994). After reviewing the record, and the reasoning articu- lated by the district court in open court during summary judgment proceedings, we find no reversible error and accordingly affirm the district court order. We further deny Sansone's "Motion for General Relief and for Expeditious Hearing" as moot. 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