Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thorpe v. School Board, 01-1797 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1797 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1797 GWENDOLYN R. THORPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-843-2) Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1797 GWENDOLYN R. THORPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-843-2) Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gwendolyn R. Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Arthur Driscoll, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gwendolyn R. Thorpe appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer in this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.* We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s order, and the magistrate judge’s reasoning stated from the bench at the hearing on the employer’s motion for summary judgment and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magis- trate judge. Thorpe v. School Bd., No. CA-00-843-2 (E.D. Va. filed May 30, 2001; entered May 31, 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 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(l) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001). 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