Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McClinton v. F. Schumacher & Co, 05-1039 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1039 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1039 MARY FRANCES MCCLINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. SCHUMACHER & COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-04-738-22BD) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Frances McClinton
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1039 MARY FRANCES MCCLINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. SCHUMACHER & COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-04-738-22BD) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Frances McClinton, Appellant Pro Se. Ingrid Blackwelder Erwin, Franklin Greene, JACKSON LEWIS, L.L.P., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Frances McClinton appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in her civil action alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McClinton v. F. Schumacher & Co., No. CA-04-738-22BD (D.S.C. Dec. 15, 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