Filed: Jan. 06, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2837 WILMA JEAN SALMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID R. SALMONS, Plaintiff, versus DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; DOLGENCORP, INCOR- PORATED; TONY MONIODIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1416-AMD) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2837 WILMA JEAN SALMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID R. SALMONS, Plaintiff, versus DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; DOLGENCORP, INCOR- PORATED; TONY MONIODIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1416-AMD) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2837 WILMA JEAN SALMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DAVID R. SALMONS, Plaintiff, versus DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; DOLGENCORP, INCOR- PORATED; TONY MONIODIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1416-AMD) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilma Jean Salmons, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Alan Morris, Julie Lynette Kitze, NEIL A. MORRIS ASSOCIATES, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Respon- dents summary judgment on her gender and wage discrimination and retaliation claims filed under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (1994), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) (1994). 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. Salmons v. Dollar General Corp., No. CA-95-1416-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1996; Nov. 20, 1996). We deny Dollar General Corporation's motion to correct the docket. We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2