4cora U. Ransome v. Garth Bowling, Jr. Charles County Board of Education

Fourth Circuit

4cora U. Ransome v. Garth Bowling, Jr. Charles County Board of Education

21 F.3d 423, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15875, 1994 WL 123948

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1994

Docket93-1620

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F.3d 423 (4cora U. Ransome v. Garth Bowling, Jr. Charles County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

4cora U. Ransome v. Garth Bowling, Jr. Charles County Board of Education, 21 F.3d 423, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15875, 1994 WL 123948 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

21 F.3d 423
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

4Cora U. RANSOME, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Garth BOWLING, Jr.; Charles County Board of Education,
Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-1620.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 3, 1993.
Decided: April 12, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-91-2327-WN)

Cora U. Ransome, Appellant Pro Se.

Benjamin Winfield Hahn, Gail Diane Allen, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Appellees in this employment discrimination action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. Secs. 2000e through 2000e-17 (West 1981 & Supp.1993). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Ransome v. Bowling, CA-91-2327-WN (D. Md. May 4, 1993). 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

*

Because Appellant's claims were appropriately dismissed on summary judgment for her failure to establish a prima facie case, we need not consider whether she is entitled to retroactive application of the expanded damage and jury trial provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, Sec. 114, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

21 F.3d 423
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

4Cora U. RANSOME, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Garth BOWLING, Jr.; Charles County Board of Education,
Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-1620.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 3, 1993.
Decided: April 12, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-91-2327-WN)

Cora U. Ransome, Appellant Pro Se.

Benjamin Winfield Hahn, Gail Diane Allen, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Appellees in this employment discrimination action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. Secs. 2000e through 2000e-17 (West 1981 & Supp.1993). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Ransome v. Bowling, CA-91-2327-WN (D. Md. May 4, 1993). 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

*

Because Appellant's claims were appropriately dismissed on summary judgment for her failure to establish a prima facie case, we need not consider whether she is entitled to retroactive application of the expanded damage and jury trial provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, Sec. 114, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F.3d 423, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15875, 1994 WL 123948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/4cora-u-ransome-v-garth-bowling-jr-charles-county--ca4-1994.