Home/Fourth Circuit/Martha S. Murray v. Department of the Army William Edmundson, Director of Education, Fort Bragg, Nc

Martha S. Murray v. Department of the Army William Edmundson, Director of Education, Fort Bragg, Nc

842 F.2d 1291, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3581, 1988 WL 25288
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 24, 1988
Docket87-3771
StatusUnpublished

This text of 842 F.2d 1291 (Martha S. Murray v. Department of the Army William Edmundson, Director of Education, Fort Bragg, Nc) 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
Martha S. Murray v. Department of the Army William Edmundson, Director of Education, Fort Bragg, Nc, 842 F.2d 1291, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3581, 1988 WL 25288 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

842 F.2d 1291
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Martha S. MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY; William Edmundson, Director of
Education, Fort Bragg, NC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-3771.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 22, 1988.
Decided March 24, 1988.

Martha S. Murray, appellant pro se.

James Gordon Carpenter, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Robert Lynn Minor, Office of the Judge Advocate General, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal from that court's order dismissing Murray's Title VII action is without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. Murray v. Department of the Army, C/A No. 87-16-7-CIV (E.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 1987).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Occidental Chemical Corporation, E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., Union Carbide Corp., Shell Chemical, Shell Oil Co., Asarco Incorporated, Ciba-Geigy Corp., Ciba-Geigy Limited, Velsicol Corp., Koopers Co. Inc., American Cyanamid Co., Uniroyal Inc., Hercules, Inc., Fmc Corp., Deskins,i.), Kline (B.), Barnes (J.), Diehl (K.), Fogle (S., M.), Savitski (K.), Warrington (B., G.), Morgan (T., L.), Clark (M.), Wagner (C., C.), Cookson (C.), Thompson (D., A.), McGee (M.), Gruss (J
842 F.2d 1291 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
842 F.2d 1291, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3581, 1988 WL 25288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-s-murray-v-department-of-the-army-william-edmundson-director-of-ca4-1988.