Harris v. Change, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Harris v. Change, Inc.

552 F. App'x 271

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2371

StatusPublished

This text of 552 F. App'x 271 (Harris v. Change, 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

Harris v. Change, Inc., 552 F. App'x 271 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Karen Harris appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Change, Inc., in her employment discrimination action and denying her motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Change, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00118-JPB-JES, 2013 WL 5574909 (Oct. 9, 2013 & Nov. 4, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal [272]*272contentions 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Karen Harris appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Change, Inc., in her employment discrimination action and denying her motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Change, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00118-JPB-JES, 2013 WL 5574909 (Oct. 9, 2013 & Nov. 4, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal [272]*272contentions 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)

552 F. App'x 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-change-inc-ca4-2014.