Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dillon v. Runyon, 96-2360 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2360 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2360 DONNA M. DILLON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-469-3-MU) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Jud
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-2360



DONNA M. DILLON,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster     General,    United
States Postal Service,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District
Judge. (CA-95-469-3-MU)


Submitted:   February 13, 1997           Decided:   February 25, 1997


Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donna M. Dillon, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

her employment discrimination action without prejudice for failure

to state a claim. Appellant claims on appeal that the district

court did not properly consider her claim under the Rehabilitation

Act, 29 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 701-797b (West 1985 & Supp. 1996). However,
since Appellant failed to allege that she exhausted administrative

remedies, we affirm the dismissal. See Love v. Pullman Co., 
404 U.S. 522
, 523 (1972); Doe v. Garrett, 
903 F.2d 1455
, 1460-61 (11th

Cir. 1990). 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