Vanderburg v. Nordstrom Department Stores

Fourth Circuit

Vanderburg v. Nordstrom Department Stores

55 F. App'x 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 2003

DocketNos. 02-1875, 02-1876

StatusPublished

This text of 55 F. App'x 680 (Vanderburg v. Nordstrom Department Stores) 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

Vanderburg v. Nordstrom Department Stores, 55 F. App'x 680 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alexis Vanderburg and Ylayn Ousley appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Nordstrom Department Stores and denying their motion for reconsideration in their civil actions alleging false imprisonment, defamation, assault, and racial discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the conclusion of the bench hearing on June 14, 2002, and in the order denying reconsideration. See Vanderburg v. Nordstrom Dep’t Stores, Nos. CA-01-1873-A; CA-01-1874-A (E.D. Va. filed July 5, 2002; July 8, 2002). 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

PER CURIAM.

Alexis Vanderburg and Ylayn Ousley appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Nordstrom Department Stores and denying their motion for reconsideration in their civil actions alleging false imprisonment, defamation, assault, and racial discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the conclusion of the bench hearing on June 14, 2002, and in the order denying reconsideration. See Vanderburg v. Nordstrom Dep’t Stores, Nos. CA-01-1873-A; CA-01-1874-A (E.D. Va. filed July 5, 2002; July 8, 2002). 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)

55 F. App'x 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderburg-v-nordstrom-department-stores-ca4-2003.