TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Melsome Nelson-Richards, ph.d. v. The Board of Trustees of Montgomery Community College Robert E. Parilla, Dr.

Melsome Nelson-Richards, ph.d. v. The Bd. of Trs. of Montgomery Cmty. Coll., 107 F.3d 867 (4th Cir. 1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 25, 1997
Docket
No. 96-2313
Citations
107 F.3d 8671997 WL 768981997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7457
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

107 F.3d 867

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Melsome NELSON-RICHARDS, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD of Trustees of Montgomery Community College; Robert E. Parilla, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-2313.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 1997. Decided Feb. 25, 1997.

Melsome Nelson-Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Sharon Veronica Burrell, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, MD; Darrell Robert VanDeusen, KOLLMAN & SHEEHAN, Baltimore, MD; Joan I. Gordon, General Counsel, MONTGOMERY COLLEGE, Rockville, MD, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Appellant's employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nelson-Richards v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery Community College, No. CA-93-323-W (D. Md. July 25 & Sept. 9, 1994; July 22, 1996). 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

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list