Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Chidebe v. MCI Telecom Corp, 98-1287 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1287 Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1287 KERRY C. CHIDEBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 96-3169-CCB) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1287 KERRY C. CHIDEBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 96-3169-CCB) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kerry C. Chidebe, Appellant Pro Se. Emmett Francis McGee, Jr., Theresa M. Connolly, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland; Harvey D. Rumeld, MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. * Judge Hamilton did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in her civil action alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-2654 (West Supp. 1998), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 1998). 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. Chidebe v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., No. CA-96-3169-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 28, 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
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