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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2360 DONNA M. DILLON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2360 DONNA M. DILLON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United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 Judg..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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