Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kinnally v. Marriott Intl, 06-1335 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1335 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 11, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1335 MARGARET KINNALLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:04-cv-02065-PMD) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret Kinn
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1335 MARGARET KINNALLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:04-cv-02065-PMD) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret Kinnally, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Brawley Templeton, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charleston, South Carolina; Charles Edward Engeman, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, LLC, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Margaret Kinnally appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Marriott in her civil action alleging employment discrimination based on age and denying Kinnally’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kinnally v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 9:04-cv-02065-PMD (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2006). 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