Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-1046•Dorothy D. Hatchett v. JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
02-1046Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit18.12.2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1046
DOROTHY D. HATCHETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States
Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-00-461)
Submitted: December 3, 2002 Decided: December 18, 2002
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorothy D. Hatchett, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Stephan James
Boardman, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Dorothy D. Hatchett appeals the district court’s order
granting Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Hatchett v. Potter, No. CA-00-461 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 7, 2001). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.