Filed: Apr. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2461 RAMONA MASON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT PCS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-515-3-MU) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2461 RAMONA MASON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT PCS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-515-3-MU) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2461 RAMONA MASON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT PCS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-515-3-MU) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Wenzl Brown, Meredith Regan Summerlin, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ramona Mason appeals the district court’s order enforcing the employment discrimination settlement agreement between Mason and Sprint PCS. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mason v. Sprint PCS, No. CA- 00-515-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 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
