Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shaw v. UPS, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Tammantha Shaw's motion for a continuance and dismissal of her case against United Parcel Service without prejudice for failing to prosecute. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-10-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-1898

    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 denial of Tammantha Shaw's motion for a continuance and dismissal of her case against United Parcel Service without prejudice for failing to prosecute. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Shaw v. UPS, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Tammantha Shaw's motion for a continuance and dismissal of her case against United Parcel Service without prejudice for failing to prosecute. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-1898

    TAMMANTHA P. SHAW,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-97-150)
    Submitted:

    October 14, 1997

    Decided:

    October 28, 1997

    Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tammantha P. Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.
    James Phillip Naughton,
    Thomas Jackson Mitchell, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tammantha P. Shaw appeals the district court's order denying
    the motion for a continuance and dismissing the case without prejudice for failing to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shaw v. United
    Parcel Serv., Inc., No. CA-97-150 (E.D. Va. June 10, 1997). 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