Filed: Oct. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1389 RACHEL ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-1202-A) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rachel Arnold,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1389 RACHEL ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-1202-A) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rachel Arnold, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1389 RACHEL ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-1202-A) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rachel Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Constantinos George Panagopoulos, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rachel Arnold appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in the employer’s favor in Arnold’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and the transcript of the summary judgment hearing containing the court’s reasoning and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Arnold v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, No. CA-98-1202-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 1999). 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