Filed: Mar. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2269 JUDITH E. SELIG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS P. BATSON COMPANY; BATSON YARN & FABRIC MACHINERY GROUP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1495-6-13AK) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2269 JUDITH E. SELIG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS P. BATSON COMPANY; BATSON YARN & FABRIC MACHINERY GROUP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1495-6-13AK) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2269 JUDITH E. SELIG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS P. BATSON COMPANY; BATSON YARN & FABRIC MACHINERY GROUP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1495-6-13AK) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judith E. Selig, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip Arthur Kilgore, Michael Stuart Pitts, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Judith E. Selig appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Selig v. Louis P. Batson Co., No. CA-98-1495-6-13AK (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2