Filed: Nov. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1372 BETH F. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UKROP’S SUPERMARKETS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-833-3) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1372 BETH F. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UKROP’S SUPERMARKETS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-833-3) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1372 BETH F. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UKROP’S SUPERMARKETS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-833-3) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert P. Geary, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Lynn F. Jacob, Aaron S. Walters, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Beth F. Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jones v. Ukrop’s Supermarkets, Inc., No. CA-04-833-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2005). 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 -
