Johnson v. KMart Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Johnson v. KMart Corp.

332 F. App'x 851

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2009

DocketNo. 08-2174

StatusPublished

This text of 332 F. App'x 851 (Johnson v. KMart Corp.) 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

Johnson v. KMart Corp., 332 F. App'x 851 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Beulah Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on her claims alleging employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006) (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2006), as well as her Title VII retaliation and state tort claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Johnson v. KMart Corp., No. 5:07-cv-00084-BR, 2008 WL 4346450 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2008). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Beulah Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on her claims alleging employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006) (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2006), as well as her Title VII retaliation and state tort claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Johnson v. KMart Corp., No. 5:07-cv-00084-BR, 2008 WL 4346450 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2008). 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)

332 F. App'x 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-kmart-corp-ca4-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack