Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1899 GRETHA M. HURST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, a/k/a Home Depot, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1334-11) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1899 GRETHA M. HURST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, a/k/a Home Depot, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1334-11) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1899 GRETHA M. HURST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, a/k/a Home Depot, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1334-11) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Thomas Hill, HILL, HILL & HILL, Ravenel, South Carolina, for Ap- pellant. James H. Elliott, Jr., BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gretha M. Hurst appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in Appellee’s favor in this personal injury action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hurst v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. No. CA-99-1334-2-11 (D.S.C. June 20, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument will not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2