Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Herron v. VCU, 04-1701 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1701 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 07, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1701 LESIA HERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-590-3) Submitted: October 13, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lesia Herron, Appellant Pr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1701 LESIA HERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-590-3) Submitted: October 13, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lesia Herron, Appellant Pro Se. James Christian Stuchell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; David Lee Ross, Pamela Finley Boston, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lesia Herron appeals the magistrate judge’s order* granting summary judgment for Virginia Commonwealth University (“VCU”) on her racial discrimination action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Herron v. VCU, No. CA-03-590-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2004). We deny Herron’s motion for 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 * Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2000), the parties consented to exercise of the district court’s jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. - 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