Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. MCIWorldcom, Inc, 00-2219 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2219
Filed: Mar. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2219 CAROLYN ELIZABETH JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI WORLDCOM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and MIKE CANNON, Supervisor; FERRELL THOMAS, Su- pervisor; MARC WHITLOCK, Supervisor; STEVE GEISS, Manager; SUSAN PENICK, Human Resource, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-3845-6) Submitted: February
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2219 CAROLYN ELIZABETH JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI WORLDCOM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and MIKE CANNON, Supervisor; FERRELL THOMAS, Su- pervisor; MARC WHITLOCK, Supervisor; STEVE GEISS, Manager; SUSAN PENICK, Human Resource, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-3845-6) Submitted: February 23, 2001 Decided: March 20, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn Elizabeth Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Anderson John- son, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carolyn Elizabeth Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing her sexual harassment action. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss the action for failure to comply with discovery orders and find no reversible error. In the brief- ing order, Jones was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in her informal brief. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Jones’ informal brief does not chal- lenge the district court’s order, but instead addresses only the merits of her sexual harassment claim. Accordingly, we affirm. 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