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)
11-2259•Mary Roslyn Mixon v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
11-2259Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 30, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2259
MARY ROSLYN MIXON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00228-MOC-DSC)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Roslyn Mixon, Appellant Pro Se. Mary H. Crosby, Stacy
Kaplan Wood, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Mary Roslyn Mixon appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
granting the Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and
dismissing her employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Mixon v.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schs., No. 3:11-cv-00228-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.
Oct. 26, 2011). 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.