Filed: Aug. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1689 PATRICIA YARBROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS, Employer; NOW CARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-1539) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1689 PATRICIA YARBROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS, Employer; NOW CARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-1539) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1689 PATRICIA YARBROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS, Employer; NOW CARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-1539) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Yarbrough, Appellant Pro Se. Robert William McFarland, Steven Roy Zahn, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Roy Barrow Blackwell, Mary Elizabeth Anderson, Brian Owen Dolan, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia Yarbrough appeals the district court’s judgment granting the Appellees’ motions to dismiss. 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. See Yarbrough v. Lifetouch National, No. CA-01-1539 (E.D. Va. May 28, 2002). 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