Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wilson v. Dalton, 97-2073 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2073 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2073 RUTH N. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee, and KENNETH W. GAY; ROBERT C. REPP; LINDA J. KANE; STEPHANIE K. HUME, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1702-A) Submitted: February 27, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before WILKINS and NI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2073 RUTH N. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee, and KENNETH W. GAY; ROBERT C. REPP; LINDA J. KANE; STEPHANIE K. HUME, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1702-A) Submitted: February 27, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruth N. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying her action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-16 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and the Rehabilita- tion Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-797b (West 1985 & Supp. 1997), and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Dalton, No. CA-96-1702-A (E.D. Va. June 23 & July 21, 1997). 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