Filed: Mar. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2836 JANETTE MOSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOW COUNTRY MEDIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-2317-2-18) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 21, 1996 Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2836 JANETTE MOSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOW COUNTRY MEDIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-2317-2-18) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 21, 1996 Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ja..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2836 JANETTE MOSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOW COUNTRY MEDIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-2317-2-18) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 21, 1996 Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janette Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Ellerbe Grimball, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination suit as untimely. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mosley v. Low Country Media, No. CA-94-2317-2-18 (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 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
