Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Uzenda v. American Republic In, 95-1873 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1873 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1873 JARA C. UZENDA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERICAN REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-94-1570-4-22) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ja
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1873 JARA C. UZENDA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERICAN REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-94-1570-4-22) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jara C. Uzenda, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Wilson Buyck, III, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK, BAKER & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jara Uzenda appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Defendant on her Title VII claim alleging sexual discrimination. Specifically, Uzenda challenges the court's finding that she was an independent contractor rather than an employee, and therefore not covered by Title VII. 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 as set forth during the hearing on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, see Mar. 20, 1995, transcript at 15-18, and con- firmed in the judgment order, see Uzenda v. American Republic Ins. Co., Inc., No. CA-94-1570-4-22 (D.S.C. Mar. 23, 1995). 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