Arrington v. Cocklin

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1674

CHARLENE ARRINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JENNIFER COCKLIN, in her individual capacity, and as supervisor at Glaxowellcome; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, d/b/a Glaxosmithkline,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

GLAXOWELLCOME, d/b/a Glaxosmithkline; STAFFING ALLIANCE/MANPOWER, INCORPORATED; MARI BETH NEELY, in her individual capacity and as a supervisor at Glaxo; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, formerly known as Glaxosmithkline, formerly known as Glaxowellcome; MANPOWER OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-655-H)

Submitted: October 15, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlene Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. Kerry Anne Shad, Kathryn Roberts Valeika, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Charlene Arrington appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment for the Defendants on her racial

discrimination and retaliation action. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Arrington v. Cocklin,

No. CA-02-655-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2004). 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

- 3 -