Filed: Mar. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1916 FANNIE M. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WABASH MAGNETICS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-22-4) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fannie M. Harris, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1916 FANNIE M. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WABASH MAGNETICS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-22-4) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fannie M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1916 FANNIE M. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WABASH MAGNETICS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-22-4) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fannie M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. William David Paxton, M. Beth Colling, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fannie M. Harris appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Wabash Magnetics, Inc., No. CA-01-22-4 (W.D. Va. July 19, 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
