Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anita Thomas v. Cumberland County Brd of Ed, 13-2240 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2240 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2240 ANITA THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; VANSTORY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Defendants - Appellees, and BETTY MUSSLEWHITE; KAREN KOONCE; LYNN GLASS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00552-FL) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2240 ANITA THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; VANSTORY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Defendants - Appellees, and BETTY MUSSLEWHITE; KAREN KOONCE; LYNN GLASS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00552-FL) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anita Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Yager Jenkins, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Anita Thomas appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her civil action alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Cumberland Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:10-cv-00552-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2013; Oct. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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