Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
SAFFORD v. PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB, INC, 381 Fed.Appx. 303 (4th Cir. 2010)
381 Fed.Appx. 303
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2010-06-07
- Topic
- general
SAFFORD v. PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB, INC, 381 Fed.Appx. 303 (4th Cir. 2010) Missie M. SAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB,INCORPORATED; Ray Armini; Dennis Mandragona, Defendants-Appellees. No. 10-1129.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: June 1, 2010.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed SAFFORD v. PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB, INC, 381 Fed.Appx. 303 (4th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
SAFFORD v. PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB, INC,381 Fed.Appx. 303(4th Cir. 2010)
Missie M. SAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB,
INCORPORATED; Ray Armini; Dennis Mandragona, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1129.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2010.
Decided: June 7, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00220-D).
Missie M. Safford, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen C. McIntyre, William Augustus Oden, III, Ward Smith, PA, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.Page 304
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Missie M. Safford appeals the district court's order granting her former employer's motion to dismiss her employment discrimination complaint as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.Safford v. Porters Neck Country Club, Inc., No. 7:08-ev-00220-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2010). 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.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩