Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Belton v. Chester Lancaster, 07-1221 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1221 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jul. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1221 LYNDA BELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESTER LANCASTER DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS BOARD, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:05-cv-01649-MBS) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1221 LYNDA BELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESTER LANCASTER DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS BOARD, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:05-cv-01649-MBS) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynda Belton, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, Reyburn Williams Lominack, III, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lynda Belton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting defendant’s summary judgment motion on her racial discrimination and harassment claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and dismissing without prejudice her state law claims for breach of contract, breach of contract with fraudulent means, and wrongful discharge. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Belton v. Chester Lancaster Disabilities and Special Needs Bd., Inc., No. 0:05-cv-01649-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2007). 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