Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1047 CATHY B. BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RICHMOND; CLAUDE G. COOPER; DYETT B. ELLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-366-3) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1047 CATHY B. BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RICHMOND; CLAUDE G. COOPER; DYETT B. ELLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-366-3) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1047 CATHY B. BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RICHMOND; CLAUDE G. COOPER; DYETT B. ELLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-366-3) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cathy B. Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Beverly Agee Burton, Assistant City Attorney, Keith Allen May, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cathy B. Branch appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Branch’s employment discrimination action.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Branch v. City of Richmond, No. CA-01-366-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 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 * The magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001). 2