U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

Pace v. E I DuPont

Pace v. E I DuPont
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 5, 1999

Pace v. E I DuPont

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2785

SHIRLEY M. PACE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-97-182-1-T)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING,* Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirley M. Page, Appellant Pro Se. Gardner G. Courson, Ronald Glen Polly, Jr., MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.

* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Shirley M. Pace appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her claims filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1994), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pace v. E.I. DuPont, No. CA-97-182-1-T (W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 1998).* 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

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on October 26, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 3, 1998. Pursuant to Rules and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.