Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nichols-Smith v. Branch Banking & Trust, 04-2224 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2224 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2224 MARY ANN NICHOLS-SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; JENNIFER ALEXANDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-03-368-3) Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: January 25, 2005 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2224 MARY ANN NICHOLS-SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; JENNIFER ALEXANDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-03-368-3) Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: January 25, 2005 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Ann Nichols-Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia A. Piekarski, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Edward Katze, Timothy R. Newton, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Ann Nichols-Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) complaint. 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 Nichols-Smith v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. CA-03-368-3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 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 -
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