Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McCoy v. Canterbury, 11-1017 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-1017 Visitors: 56
Filed: May 05, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1017 ELSIBETH BRANDEE MCCOY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STEVE CANTERBURY, Administrative Director for Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Defendant – Appellee, and SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA; CABELL COUNTY COURTHOUSE; BARBRA WILLS, Courthouse Administrator, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Jud
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-1017


ELSIBETH BRANDEE MCCOY,

                Plaintiff – Appellant,

          v.

STEVE CANTERBURY, Administrative Director for Supreme Court
of Appeals of West Virginia,

                Defendant – Appellee,

          and

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA; CABELL COUNTY
COURTHOUSE; BARBRA WILLS, Courthouse Administrator,

                Defendants.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.  Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00368)


Submitted:   May 2, 2011                      Decided:   May 5, 2011


Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elsibeth Brandee McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Hedges,
Stephanie Shepherd, BYRNE, HEDGES & LYONS, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                2
PER CURIAM:

          Elsibeth   Brandee    McCoy    appeals    the   district    court’s

order dismissing her action filed under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17

(West 2003 & Supp. 2010).       We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error.      Accordingly, we affirm substantially for

the reasons stated by the district court.            McCoy v. Canterbury,

No. 3:10-cv-00368 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 20 & 21, 2010).               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




                                     3

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