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)
16-1483•Kisha Marie Davis v. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Physicians MUSC-P
16-1483Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit16.09.2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1483
KISHA MARIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Physicians MUSC-P,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate
Judge. (2:14-cv-03152-MGB)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kisha Marie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Andreas Neal Satterfield,
Jr., John Sulau, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kisha Marie Davis appeals the magistrate judge’s* order
granting Medical University of South Carolina summary judgment
on her claims, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave
Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012), the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29
U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016), and Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Davis’ application to
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by
the magistrate judge. See Davis v. Med. Univ. of S.C., No.
2:14-cv-03152-MGB (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016). 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
* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.