Filed: May 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2124 DEBORAH REYNOLDS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a corporation; JAMES H. SLAYTON, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00457) Submitted: May 14, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2124 DEBORAH REYNOLDS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a corporation; JAMES H. SLAYTON, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00457) Submitted: May 14, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2124 DEBORAH REYNOLDS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a corporation; JAMES H. SLAYTON, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00457) Submitted: May 14, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Mary H. Sanders, HUDDLESTON & BOLEN, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deborah Reynolds appeals the district court’s order entering judgment for Defendants in accordance with the jury’s verdict in Reynolds’ negligence action. We have reviewed the record and the issues Reynolds raises on appeal and find no grounds for appellate relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Reynolds v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00457 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 2, 2009). 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
