Filed: Jun. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1056 LENDORA GILCHRIST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PARTH’S INCORPORATED, d/b/a/ Comfort Inn; ALPHA PARMAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:10-cv-03034-JMC) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lendora Gi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1056 LENDORA GILCHRIST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PARTH’S INCORPORATED, d/b/a/ Comfort Inn; ALPHA PARMAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:10-cv-03034-JMC) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lendora Gil..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1056 LENDORA GILCHRIST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PARTH’S INCORPORATED, d/b/a/ Comfort Inn; ALPHA PARMAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:10-cv-03034-JMC) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lendora Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Edward Justice, Jr., Joseph Jakob Kennedy, TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lendora Gilchrist appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gilchrist v. Parth’s Inc., No. 4:10-cv-03034-JMC (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2011). 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
