Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Butler v. Orangeburg County, 98-2286 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2286 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2286 AVIS W. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG COUNTY; DONNIE L. HILLIARD, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-1412-5-6BC) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS,* and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2286 AVIS W. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG COUNTY; DONNIE L. HILLIARD, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-1412-5-6BC) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS,* and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Avis W. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Derwood Lorraine Aydlette, III, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. * Judge Williams 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Avis W. Butler appeals from the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on her employment discrimination suit.* Our review of the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the magistrate judge’s reasoning. See Butler v. Orange- burg County, No. CA-97-1412-5-6BC (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 1998). We dis- pense 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c) (1994). 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