Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Burnette v. Signet/Capital One, 98-2242 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2242 Visitors: 40
Filed: Feb. 03, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2242 RAMONA S. BURNETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SIGNET/CAPITAL ONE BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-865-3) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING,* Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona S. Burnette, Appellant Pro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2242 RAMONA S. BURNETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SIGNET/CAPITAL ONE BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-865-3) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING,* Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona S. Burnette, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Nicholas Regnery, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, Richmond, Virginia; Bruin S. Richardson, III, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia for Appellee. * Judge King 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ramona Burnette appeals the district court’s order awarding costs to the Defendant and dismissing as barred by the statute of limitations her complaint in which she alleged bankruptcy discrim- ination. 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. See Burnette v. Signet/ Capital One, No. CA-97-865-3 (E.D. Va. July 20, 1998). Addition- ally, we deny Capital One’s and Signet’s motions for sanctions. 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