Filed: Aug. 24, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1386 MARY LOU RECCHIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERICSSON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-95-6) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 24, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Recchia, Appellant Pro Se. Ba
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1386 MARY LOU RECCHIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERICSSON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-95-6) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 24, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Recchia, Appellant Pro Se. Bay..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1386 MARY LOU RECCHIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERICSSON, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-95-6) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 24, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Recchia, Appellant Pro Se. Bayard Easter Harris, Diane Marie Baun, Daniel Clayton Summerlin, III, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLE- GROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Lou Recchia appeals the district court’s order granting Ericsson, Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment in her employ- ment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, although we deny Ericsson’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Recchia v. Ericsson, Inc., No. CA-99-95-6 (W.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2001). 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