Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Woods v. Pizza Hut of America, 97-1745 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1745 Visitors: 37
Filed: Aug. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1745 CAROLYN J. WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1013-2) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER* and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1745 CAROLYN J. WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1013-2) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER* and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. * Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 46(d) (1994). Carolyn J. Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Roussel Blackman, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's adverse grant of sum- mary judgment and dismissal of her civil action. 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. Woods v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., No. CA-96-1013-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 1997). 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
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