Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ingram v. Henderson, 00-1200 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1200 Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1200 JUDY M. INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-108-2) Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1200 JUDY M. INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-108-2) Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore R. Dues, Jr., THEODORE R. DUES, JR., L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; Thomas J. Marshall, Acting Managing Counsel, Legal Policy, Steven F. Hirsch, UNITED STATES POSTAL SER- VICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Judy M. Ingram appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging employment discrimination. 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 Ingram v. Henderson, No. CA-99-108-2 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 24, 2000). 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