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)
04-1190•Susan McCoy v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
04-1190Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit16.08.2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1190
SUSAN MCCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-03-491-2-23BG)
Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 16, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Susan McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Yager Jenkins, NELSON, MULLINS,
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; Carole
Golinski Miller, MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC, Birmingham, Alabama,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Susan McCoy appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge, awarding summary
judgment to Defendant, and dismissing McCoy’s employment
discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See McCoy v. Merrill Lynch, No. CA-03-491-2-23BG
(D.S.C. Jan. 21, 2004). 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.