Filed: Jun. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1164 TILLIE M. TWITTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUBBELL PREMISE-MARION, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-95-255) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tillie M. Twitty,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1164 TILLIE M. TWITTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUBBELL PREMISE-MARION, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-95-255) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tillie M. Twitty, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1164 TILLIE M. TWITTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUBBELL PREMISE-MARION, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-95-255) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tillie M. Twitty, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing this action alleging age and race discrimination. 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. Twitty v. Hubbell Premise-Marion, Inc., No. CA-95-255 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 2, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
