Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Klaiber v. Rinaldi, 01-1950 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1950 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1950 PATRICIA KLAIBER; BRENDA MILLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus NICHOLAS RINALDI, individually, and in his official capacity with the United States Postal Service; B. J. THOMPSON, individually, and in his official capacity with the United States Postal Service; WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1950 PATRICIA KLAIBER; BRENDA MILLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus NICHOLAS RINALDI, individually, and in his official capacity with the United States Postal Service; B. J. THOMPSON, individually, and in his official capacity with the United States Postal Service; WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-541-1) Submitted: December 18, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Klaiber, Brenda Miller, Appellants Pro Se. David George Karro, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia Klaiber and Brenda Miller appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees on all of their employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Klaiber v. Rinaldi, No. CA-99-541-1 (M.D.N.C. June 21, 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