Filed: Jun. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1021 HERMIONE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOME QUARTERS WAREHOUSE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (MISC-95-48-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hermione Wright, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1021 HERMIONE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOME QUARTERS WAREHOUSE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (MISC-95-48-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hermione Wright, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1021 HERMIONE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOME QUARTERS WAREHOUSE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (MISC-95-48-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hermione Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying the motion for extension of time in which to file a complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 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. Wright v. Home Quarters Warehouse, Inc., No. MISC- 95-48-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 4, 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
