Kicinski v. North Carolina A & T State University

Fourth Circuit

Kicinski v. North Carolina A & T State University

583 F. App'x 115

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 5, 2014·No. No. 14-1111·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen Kicinski, a former employee of Defendant North Carolina A & T University (“University”), appeals the district court’s order granting the University’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) motion for judgment oh the pleadings in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo, see Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 751-52 (4th Cir.2012) (setting forth standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2398, 185 L.Ed.2d 1105 (2013), in conjunction with the relevant record and the parties’ briefs, and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Kicinski v. N.C. A & T State Univ., No. 1:11-cv-00351-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Kathleen Kicinski, a former employee of Defendant North Carolina A & T University (“University”), appeals the district court’s order granting the University’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) motion for judgment oh the pleadings in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo, see Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 751-52 (4th Cir.2012) (setting forth standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2398, 185 L.Ed.2d 1105 (2013), in conjunction with the relevant record and the parties’ briefs, and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Kicinski v. N.C. A & T State Univ., No. 1:11-cv-00351-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 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.

Kicinski v. North Carolina A & T State University, 583 F. App'x 115 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

583 F. App'x 115 (Kicinski v. North Carolina A & T State University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related