Filed: Apr. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2500 EDNA M. PICKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED; JULIE GOEMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-952-5-F) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2500 EDNA M. PICKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED; JULIE GOEMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-952-5-F) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2500
EDNA M. PICKETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED; JULIE GOEMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-96-952-5-F)
Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998
Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edna M. Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Stephen Muzingo, WALMART
STORES, INCORPORATED - LEGAL TEAM, Bentonville, Arizona, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the De-
fendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing this Title VII
action alleging racial discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1994). We
have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(e)(1); see generally Greene v. Whirlpool Corp.,
708 F.2d 128, 130
(4th Cir. 1983). 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