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)
02-1146•Carolyn Bandy v. Sprint Mid-Atlantic Telecom, Incorporated
02-1146Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 23, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1146
CAROLYN BANDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPRINT MID-ATLANTIC TELECOM, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-819-5-F)
Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 23, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn Bandy, Appellant Pro Se. Zebulon Dyer Anderson, SMITH,
ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Thomas Blumeyer Weaver, ARMSTRONG, TEASDALE, SCHLAFLY &
DAVIS, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn Bandy appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Defendant on Bandy’s action alleging race
discrimination and retaliatory harassment. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Bandy v. Spring Mid-Atlantic Telecom, Inc., No. CA-00-
819-5-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 2, 2002). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.