Filed: Mar. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2171 LYDIA A. CHARLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00402-RJC-DSC) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2171 LYDIA A. CHARLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00402-RJC-DSC) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2171
LYDIA A. CHARLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00402-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lydia A. Charles, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lydia A. Charles appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her complaint alleging that the United States Postal
Service discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e–17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant
Charles leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Charles v. Donahoe, No.
3:12-cv-00402-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2014). 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
2