Filed: Jun. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1335 CHARLOTTE LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOYOLA COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2668-S) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlotte Lawson, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1335 CHARLOTTE LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOYOLA COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2668-S) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlotte Lawson, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1335 CHARLOTTE LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOYOLA COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2668-S) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlotte Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Christopher Dame, GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charlotte Lawson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Lawson v. Loyola College, No. CA-99-2668-S (D. Md. Feb. 11, 2000). We dis- pense 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. DISMISSED 2
