Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Fidelity & Dep Co, 98-2512 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2512 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 06, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2512 CAROLYN L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee, and REGINAL COGDELL; CATHY LACOCK; COLONIAL AMERI- CAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-97-112-CCB) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decide
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2512 CAROLYN L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee, and REGINAL COGDELL; CATHY LACOCK; COLONIAL AMERI- CAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-97-112-CCB) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: April 6, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard Edwin Cohen, Emmett Francis McGee, Jr., PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carolyn L. Jones appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants in her Title VII and 28 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994) action claiming employment discrimination based upon her race and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Fidel- ity & Deposit Co. of Md., No. CA-97-112-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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