Bannerman v. Potter

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 24, 2003
Docket02-2352
StatusUnpublished

This text of Bannerman v. Potter (Bannerman v. Potter) 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
Bannerman v. Potter, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2352

PATRICIA A. BANNERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-108-2)

Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 24, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia A. Bannerman, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Rixner Curry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Patricia A. Bannerman appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her Title VII action in which she alleged gender

discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Bannerman v. Potter, No. CA-01-108-2

(S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 2002). 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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bannerman v. Potter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bannerman-v-potter-ca4-2003.