Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wells v. BAE Systems Norfolk, 07-1430 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1430 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 15, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1430 CAROLYN WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BAE SYSTEMS NORFOLK SHIP REPAIR, formerly known as Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00573-RBS) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1430 CAROLYN WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BAE SYSTEMS NORFOLK SHIP REPAIR, formerly known as Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00573-RBS) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, Kristina Helen Vaquera, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carolyn Wells appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her disability discrimination claims brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000), and the Virginia Human Rights Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3900-2.2-3902 (2005). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wells v. BAE Sys. Norfolk Ship Repair, No. 2:05-cv- 00573-RBS (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 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