Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Walker v. SC Dept of HEC, 98-1810 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1810 Visitors: 46
Filed: Aug. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1810 LINDA P. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, Versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND EN- VIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2544-3-17BC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1810 LINDA P. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, Versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND EN- VIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2544-3-17BC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda P. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Hardwick Stuart, Jr., William Kenneth Witherspoon, Claude E. Hardin, Jr., BERRY, ADAMS QUACKEN- BUSH & DUNBAR, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting Appel- lee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 (1994) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1201 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Walker v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health & Environ- mental Control, No. CA-96-2544-3-17BC (D.S.C. May 6, 1998). 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