Matthews v. M.C. Dean, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Matthews v. M.C. Dean, Inc.

452 F. App'x 297

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 23, 2011·No. No. 10-1322·Published

Opinion

[298]*298Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Erma J. Matthews appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the summary judgment hearing. MATTHEWS v. M.C. DEAN, INC., No. 1:09-cv-00622-LMB-TRJ, 2010 WL 2323674 (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2010). 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

[298]*298Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Erma J. Matthews appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the summary judgment hearing. MATTHEWS v. M.C. DEAN, INC., No. 1:09-cv-00622-LMB-TRJ, 2010 WL 2323674 (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2010). 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.

Matthews v. M.C. Dean, Inc., 452 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

452 F. App'x 297 (Matthews v. M.C. Dean, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.