Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hunt v. Norfolk Social Svc, 00-2398 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2398 Visitors: 14
Filed: May 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2398 EVORA BRENDA HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK SOCIAL SERVICES, City of Norfolk, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-140-2) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: May 15, 2001 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2398 EVORA BRENDA HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK SOCIAL SERVICES, City of Norfolk, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-140-2) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: May 15, 2001 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Evora Brenda Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Phillip Juren, Deputy City Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Evora Brenda Hunt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant on Hunt’s employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2000) due process violation claim. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hunt v. Norfolk Soc. Servs., No. CA-00-140-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2000). 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