Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Joyce v. Fieldcrest Cannon, 99-2273 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2273 Visitors: 29
Filed: Dec. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2273 BERTHA M. JOYCE; NANCY W. MANNS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus FIELDCREST CANNON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-57-4) Submitted: November 9, 1999 Decided: December 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2273 BERTHA M. JOYCE; NANCY W. MANNS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus FIELDCREST CANNON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-57-4) Submitted: November 9, 1999 Decided: December 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bertha M. Joyce, Nancy W. Manns, Appellants Pro Se. Julianna Cochran Theall, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina; James A.L. Daniel, DANIEL, VAUGHAN, MEDLEY & SMITHERMAN, P.C., Danville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bertha M. Joyce and Nancy W. Manns appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Fieldcrest Cannon, Incorporated, and dismissing their employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Joyce v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., No. CA-96-57-4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 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
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