Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Noland v. Henderson, 00-1207 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1207 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1207 SORAYA NOLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ROSE O. HAYES, Plaintiff, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1027-A) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 17, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1207 SORAYA NOLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ROSE O. HAYES, Plaintiff, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1027-A) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 17, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan R. Mook, DiMURO, GINSBERG & MOOK, P.C., Alexandria, Vir- ginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Arthur E. Peabody, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alex- andria, Virginia; Thomas J. Marshall, Stephan J. Boardman, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Soraya Noland appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in her employ- ment discrimination action. Our review the record, the district court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Noland v. Henderson, No. CA-99-1027-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 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