The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1113•Joy A. Anderson v. Argenbright, Incorporated
01-1113Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 9, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1113
JOY A. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARGENBRIGHT, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-00-821-A)
Submitted: August 10, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheila Venable, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles A.
Hawkins, Sheldon W. Snipe, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Joy A. Anderson appeals the district court order granting
summary judgment to Argenbright, Inc., denying her motion for
summary judgment and dismissing her employment discrimination
complaint. Anderson also appeals the district court’s failure to
award her punitive damages and to defer ruling on a motion in
limine. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
findings from the bench and affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Anderson v. Argenbright, Inc., CA-00-821-A (E.D. Va.
Dec. 22, 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.