Bogart v. NVR, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Bogart v. NVR, Inc.

12 F. App'x 103

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2001

DocketNos. 00-2005, 00-2397

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. App'x 103 (Bogart v. NVR, Inc.) 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

Bogart v. NVR, Inc., 12 F. App'x 103 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In No. 00-2005, Nancy Lee Bogart appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her civil action for wrongful discharge in violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act and various interlocutory orders. In No. 00-2397, Bogart appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to provide transcripts. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See [104]*104Bogart v. NVR, Inc., No. CA-99-1928-A (E.D. Va. July 7 and Sept. 11, 2000). We deny Bogart’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

PER CURIAM.

In No. 00-2005, Nancy Lee Bogart appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her civil action for wrongful discharge in violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act and various interlocutory orders. In No. 00-2397, Bogart appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to provide transcripts. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See [104]*104Bogart v. NVR, Inc., No. CA-99-1928-A (E.D. Va. July 7 and Sept. 11, 2000). We deny Bogart’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. App'x 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bogart-v-nvr-inc-ca4-2001.