Filed: Sep. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1599 HAVVA CHABUK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-1340-A) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Havva Chabuk, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1599 HAVVA CHABUK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-1340-A) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Havva Chabuk, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1599 HAVVA CHABUK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-1340-A) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Havva Chabuk, Appellant Pro Se. Celeste deLorge Flippen, J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Plano, Texas; Claude David Convisser, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying her motion for leave to file untimely answers to Appellee’s request for admission and granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on Appellant’s claims of retaliatory discharge, hostile work environ- ment, and negligent supervision against her employer. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chabuk v. J.C. Penney Co., No. CA-97-1340-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2