Filed: Jun. 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1185 MARTHA GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cv-00692-REP) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martha Gray,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1185 MARTHA GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cv-00692-REP) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martha Gray, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1185 MARTHA GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cv-00692-REP) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martha Gray, Appellant Pro Se. William DeLaney Bayliss, Edward James Dillon, Jr., WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martha Gray appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration of its grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer in her employment discrimination action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gray v. Richmond Pub. Sch., No. 3:04-cv-00692-REP (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 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 -