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)
16-1326•Lorenda McCoy v. Target Corporation
16-1326Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 29, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1326
LORENDA MCCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-03437-GLR)
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenda McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel R. Lanier, Lynn
Christina Schlie, MILES & STOCKBRIGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lorenda McCoy appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. McCoy v. Target Corp., No. 1:14-cv-
03437-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2016). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.