Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth University

Fourth Circuit

Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth University

116 F. App'x 467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 2004

Docket04-1701

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 F. App'x 467 (Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth University) 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

Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth University, 116 F. App'x 467 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lesia Herron appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting summary judgment for Virginia Commonwealth University (“VCU”) on her racial discrimination action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Herron v. VCU, No. CA-03-590-3 (E.D.Va. Apr. 29, 2004). We deny Herron’s motion for 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

*

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2000), the parties consented to exercise of the district court’s jurisdiction by a magistrate judge.

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

PER CURIAM:

Lesia Herron appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting summary judgment for Virginia Commonwealth University (“VCU”) on her racial discrimination action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Herron v. VCU, No. CA-03-590-3 (E.D.Va. Apr. 29, 2004). We deny Herron’s motion for 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

*

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2000), the parties consented to exercise of the district court’s jurisdiction by a magistrate judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. App'x 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herron-v-virginia-commonwealth-university-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack