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)
02-2275•Cynthia Lee Whitaker v. Titmus Optical Inc
02-2275Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 4, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2275
CYNTHIA LEE WHITAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TITMUS OPTICAL INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-96-3)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cynthia Lee Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Forgrieve Jacob,
Aaron Scott Walters, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Lee Whitaker appeals from the district court’s order
denying relief in her employment discrimination action. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Whitaker v.
Titmus Optical Inc., No. CA-02-96-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 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.