Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hyatt v. AVCO Financial Ser, 00-1386 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1386 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1386 ANN MARIE HYATT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, a/k/a AVCO Mortgage & Acceptance, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-745) Submitted: August 15, 2000 Decided: August 25, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1386 ANN MARIE HYATT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, a/k/a AVCO Mortgage & Acceptance, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-745) Submitted: August 15, 2000 Decided: August 25, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ann Marie Hyatt, Appellant Pro Se. Rodney Allen Satterwhite, Laura Clark McCoy, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ann Marie Hyatt appeals the district court’s order granting Avco Financial Services’ motion to dismiss her claims filed pursu- ant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and her state law claims of breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 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 Hyatt v. Avco Financial Servs., No. CA-98-745 (E.D. Va. March 2, 2000). 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 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