Filed: Oct. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1158 MARLENE C. SEAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-94-3423) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlene C. Seay, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1158 MARLENE C. SEAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-94-3423) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlene C. Seay, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1158 MARLENE C. SEAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-94-3423) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlene C. Seay, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in this employment dis- crimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Seay v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-94- 3423 (D.S.C. Dec. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
