Filed: Aug. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1674 MARY E. MILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALEXIS M. HERMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-112-4) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1674 MARY E. MILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALEXIS M. HERMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-112-4) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1674 MARY E. MILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALEXIS M. HERMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-112-4) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary E. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anson Rhine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary E. Miles appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil case. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miles v. Herman, No. CA-97-112-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 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
