Charlot v. Donley

Fourth Circuit

Charlot v. Donley

592 F. App'x 209

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 2015

DocketNo. 14-1650

StatusPublished

This text of 592 F. App'x 209 (Charlot v. Donley) 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

Charlot v. Donley, 592 F. App'x 209 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vera Shepard Chariot appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action alleging defamation and multiple violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chariot v. Donley, No. 3:11-cv-00579-MBS (D.S.C. Mar. 29 & Sept. 30, 2013; Mar. 31, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vera Shepard Chariot appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action alleging defamation and multiple violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chariot v. Donley, No. 3:11-cv-00579-MBS (D.S.C. Mar. 29 & Sept. 30, 2013; Mar. 31, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 F. App'x 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlot-v-donley-ca4-2015.