Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Noland v. Henderson, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in an employment discrimination case brought by Soraya Noland against the Postal Service. The appellate court reviewed the record, district court opinion, and briefs and found no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its January 28, 2000 opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-11-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-1207

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in an employment discrimination case brought by Soraya Noland against the Postal Service. The appellate court reviewed the record, district court opinion, and briefs and found no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its January 28, 2000 opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views2 pages

    Noland v. Henderson, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in an employment discrimination case brought by Soraya Noland against the Postal Service. The appellate court reviewed the record, district court opinion, and briefs and found no reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in its January 28, 2000 opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-1207

    SORAYA NOLAND,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    ROSE O. HAYES,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster
    United States Postal Service,

    General,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-99-1027-A)

    Submitted:

    October 31, 2000

    Decided:

    November 17, 2000

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jonathan R. Mook, DiMURO, GINSBERG & MOOK, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
    Arthur E. Peabody, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Thomas J. Marshall, Stephan J. Boardman, UNITED
    STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Soraya Noland appeals from the district courts order granting
    summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in her employment discrimination action.

    Our review the record, the district

    courts opinion, and the parties briefs discloses no reversible


    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

    court.

    See Noland v. Henderson, No. CA-99-1027-A (E.D. Va. Jan.

    28, 2000).

    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

    You might also like