Hilda Broady v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Colonial & 21st Street

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1645
HILDA BROADY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
Hardees of Colonial & 21st Street,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. William T. Prince, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-99-1816-2)
Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 12, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley E. Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
C. Kailani Memmer, GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* The case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising juris-
diction upon consent of the parties, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).
2
PER CURIAM:
Hilda Broady appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellee Boddie-Noell Enterprises,
Inc., in this diversity action, in which Broady alleged that
Boddie-Noell was negligent. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs,
the joint appendix, and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
magistrate judge. Broady v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., No. CA-99-
1816-2 (E.D. Va. May 12, 2000). 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 --