Charlene Arrington v. Jennifer Cocklin, in her individual capacity

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1674
CHARLENE ARRINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JENNIFER COCKLIN, in her individual capacity,
and as supervisor at Glaxowellcome; SMITHKLINE
BEECHAM CORPORATION, d/b/a Glaxosmithkline,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GLAXOWELLCOME, d/b/a Glaxosmithkline; STAFFING
ALLIANCE/MANPOWER, INCORPORATED; MARI BETH
NEELY, in her individual capacity and as a
supervisor at Glaxo; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
C O R P O R A T I O N , f o r m e r l y k n o w n a s
Glaxosmithkline, formerly known as
Glaxowellcome; MANPOWER OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-02-655-H)
Submitted: October 15, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlene Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. Kerry Anne Shad, Kathryn
Roberts Valeika, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL &
JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Charlene Arrington appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for the Defendants on her racial
discrimination and retaliation action. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Arrington v. Cocklin,
No. CA-02-655-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2004). 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

-- 3 of 3 --