Thomas v. Duke University

Fourth Circuit

Thomas v. Duke University

512 F. App'x 312

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2013

DocketNo. 12-2563

StatusPublished

This text of 512 F. App'x 312 (Thomas v. Duke 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

Thomas v. Duke University, 512 F. App'x 312 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[313]*313Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Thomas appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint alleging discriminatory hiring practices and denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Thomas leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Duke Univ., No. 3:11-cv-00387, 2012 WL 5985504 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2012). 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

[313]*313Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Thomas appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint alleging discriminatory hiring practices and denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Thomas leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Duke Univ., No. 3:11-cv-00387, 2012 WL 5985504 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2012). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F. App'x 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-duke-university-ca4-2013.