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)
03-1177•Loretta Jane Reeves v. Virginia Department of Correctional Education
03-1177Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 20, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1177
LORETTA JANE REEVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION;
MARK HUTCHINSON; GEORGE ERPS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (CA-02-20-2)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Loretta Jane Reeves, Appellant Pro Se. Sydney E. Rab, Anthony
Philip Meredith, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Loretta Jane Reeves appeals the district court’s judgment
granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing
her hostile work environment claim. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Reeves v. Virginia Dep’t of Corr.
Educ., No. CA-02-20-2 (W.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2003). 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.