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)
99-2405•Tammy L. Londeree v. Crutchfield Corporation, d/b/a Crutchfield Corporation
99-2405Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 29, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2405
TAMMY L. LONDEREE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CRUTCHFIELD CORPORATION, d/b/a Crutchfield
Corporation; MARK MAYNARD; JEFF CLATTERBUCK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CA-99-31-3)
Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tammy L. Londeree, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce McCoy Steen, Kerri
Borchardt Taylor, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tammy Londeree appeals the district court’s order dismissing
her action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2000e-17 (West
1994 & Supp. 1999) for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have re-
viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Londeree v. Crutchfield Corp., No. CA-99-31-3
(W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials 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.