Filed: Apr. 14, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2156 SHERIKA L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYSON FOODS, INCORPORATED; JAKE CLARKE, a/k/a Daniel Clarke, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-04-276-3) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2156 SHERIKA L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYSON FOODS, INCORPORATED; JAKE CLARKE, a/k/a Daniel Clarke, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-04-276-3) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2156 SHERIKA L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TYSON FOODS, INCORPORATED; JAKE CLARKE, a/k/a Daniel Clarke, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-04-276-3) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Hancock, PETTY, MULLEN, HANCOCK, P.L.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Rafael E. Morell, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee Tyson Foods, Inc. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sherika L. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her Title VII action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. CA-04-276-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2004). 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 -
