Filed: Oct. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1722 MARSHA A. CLAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FUJI COPIAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-875-19-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marsha A. Clayton, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1722 MARSHA A. CLAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FUJI COPIAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-875-19-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marsha A. Clayton, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1722 MARSHA A. CLAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FUJI COPIAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-875-19-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marsha A. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Pharr Pearson, Nicole Paul Cantey, ELLZEY & BROOKS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marsha A. Clayton appeals the district court’s order denying relief in her action against her former employer. 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 Clayton v. Fuji Copian Corp., No. CA-98-875-19-3 (D.S.C. May 5, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
