Filed: Nov. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1770 WILHELMINA F. PERRIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAZEL O’LEARY, Secretary, United States De- partment of Energy, Defendant - Appellee, and SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1481-1-6) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTO
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1770 WILHELMINA F. PERRIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAZEL O’LEARY, Secretary, United States De- partment of Energy, Defendant - Appellee, and SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1481-1-6) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1770 WILHELMINA F. PERRIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAZEL O’LEARY, Secretary, United States De- partment of Energy, Defendant - Appellee, and SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1481-1-6) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilhelmina F. Perrin, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wilhelmina F. Perrin appeals the district court’s order deny- ing her motion for a new trial. 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. Perrin v. O’Leary, No. CA-95-1481-1-6 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 1998). 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