Filed: Oct. 06, 1999
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1792 KATHLEEN A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CYNTHIA WALL, individually, and in her capac- ity as member of the faculty of the University of Virginia Department of English; GORDON BRADEN, individually, and in his capacity as member of faculty and as Chair/University of Virginia English Department; PATRICIA SPACKS, individually, and in her capacity as Chair of the English Department at the University of Virginia; J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1792 KATHLEEN A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CYNTHIA WALL, individually, and in her capac- ity as member of the faculty of the University of Virginia Department of English; GORDON BRADEN, individually, and in his capacity as member of faculty and as Chair/University of Virginia English Department; PATRICIA SPACKS, individually, and in her capacity as Chair of the English Department at the University of Virginia; JO..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1792 KATHLEEN A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CYNTHIA WALL, individually, and in her capac- ity as member of the faculty of the University of Virginia Department of English; GORDON BRADEN, individually, and in his capacity as member of faculty and as Chair/University of Virginia English Department; PATRICIA SPACKS, individually, and in her capacity as Chair of the English Department at the University of Virginia; JOHN CASTEEN, individually, and in his capacity as President of the University of Virginia; PETER W. LOW, individually, and in his capacity as Vice President and Provost of the University of Virginia; ROBERT HUSKEY, individually, and in his capacity as Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences/UVA; MELVYN LEFFLER, individually, and in his capacity as Dean of Faculty, Uni- versity of Virginia; KAREN HOLT, individually, and in her capacity as Equal Opportunity Pro- grams Officer at the University of Virginia; RICHARD RILEY, individually, and in his ca- pacity as Secretary of Education at the United States Department of Education; NORMA CANTU, individually, and in her capacity as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education; JANETTE LIM, individually, and in her capacity as Director, Program Legal Component, Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of Education; FOUR UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, individually, and in their capacity as police officers for the University of Virginia and/or the City of Charlottesville; BARBARA MELOSH, individually, and in her capacity as Co-Chair, George Mason University English Department; ROSEMARY JANN, individually, and in her capacity as Co-Chair, George Mason University English Department; RONALD J. SINACORE, individually, and in his capacity as Affirmative Action Planning Co- ordinator for George Mason University; EARL J. INGRAM, individually, and in his capacity as Vice President and Equity Officer for George Mason University; CLAIRE KINNEY, individually, and in her capacity as member of the faculty, University of Virginia Department of English; SUSAN FRAIMAN, individually, and in her capac- ity as member of the faculty/University of Virginia Department of English; KATHERINE MAUS, individually, and in her capacity as member of the faculty/University of Virginia Department of English, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-235-7) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathleen A. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Kathleen A. Taylor appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil action pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Wall, No. CA-98-235-7 (May 18, 1999). 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 3