Filed: Nov. 09, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1461 YOLANDA MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERSONAL-TOUCH OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-110) Submitted: October 19, 2005 Decided: November 9, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yolanda Miller, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1461 YOLANDA MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERSONAL-TOUCH OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-110) Submitted: October 19, 2005 Decided: November 9, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yolanda Miller, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1461 YOLANDA MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERSONAL-TOUCH OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-110) Submitted: October 19, 2005 Decided: November 9, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yolanda Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, Kristina Helen Vaquera, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Yolanda Miller appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to Personal-Touch of Virginia, Incorporated and dismissing her complaint under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 - 2654 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court.* See Miller v. Personal-Touch of Va., No. CA-04- 110 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 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 * We have considered the issues raised in Miller’s informal brief concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, premeditated discharge and the district court’s alleged negligence in disposing of her complaint and find the issues without merit. - 2 -