Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Byrd v. Kemet Electronics, 01-1555 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1555 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1555 ROSE MARY BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEMET ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3548-6-20BG) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1555 ROSE MARY BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEMET ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3548-6-20BG) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rose Mary Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Oliver King, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rose Mary Byrd appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging racial and age discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621, et seq. (West 1999 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Byrd v. Kemet Electronics Corp., No. CA-00-3548-6-20BG (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2001). 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