Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Baker v. US Postal Service, 98-2691 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2691 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2691 LORI J. BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BULK MAIL CENTER; MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-546-2) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILL
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2691 LORI J. BAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BULK MAIL CENTER; MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-546-2) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lori J. Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lori Baker appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer in her civil action in which she alleged discrimination based upon disability and related claims. 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. See Baker v. United States Postal Service, No. CA-97-546-2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 1998). We deny Appellee’s motion to strike Appellant’s exhibits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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