Dawn Figman v. Sprint

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2482
DAWN FIGMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPRINT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CA-01-3-3)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; Timothy J. Nieman, RHOADS & SIMON, L.L.P., Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dawn Figman appeals from the district court’s orders granting
summary judgment to Defendant on her claims of discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 &
Supp. 2001) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 2001), and denying her
subsequent “Motion to Reinstate,” which the district court con-
strued as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Figman’s
motion to file a formal pro se brief and affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. Figman v. Sprint, No. CA-01-3-3 (W.D. Va. Nov.
6, 2001; Nov. 30, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --