Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Canty v. Richland County School Dist, 99-1311 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1311 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1311 MABLE N. CANTY; LEROY CANTY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO; CHERYL C. WASHINGTON, individually and in her official capacity as principal of Dent Middle School, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-3994-3-19BC) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 21, 1999 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1311 MABLE N. CANTY; LEROY CANTY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO; CHERYL C. WASHINGTON, individually and in her official capacity as principal of Dent Middle School, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-3994-3-19BC) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 21, 1999 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hemphill P. Pride, II, LAW OFFICE OF HEMPHILL P. PRIDE, II, Colum- bia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth L. Childs, Kathryn Long Mahoney, Allen D. Smith, CHILDS & HALLIGAN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mable M. Canty appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Canty v. Richland County Sch. Dist. Two, No. CA-97-3994-3-19BC (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 1999). 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