Visalakshi Yogaraj v. Washington Adventist Hosp., 108 F.3d 1375 (4th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Visalakshi Yogaraj v. Washington Adventist Hosp., 108 F.3d 1375 (4th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wolford v. United States (vaed, 2010-07-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wolford v. United States
E.D. Va. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 108 F.3d 1375 (Table), 1997 WL 123138 , at *1 (4th Cir.1997) (concluding that the district court did not clearly err in counting all of the controlled substances obtained by prescriptions during the course of a conspiracy, including amounts obtained for personal use by the conspirators, when calculating the applicable drug weight for sentencing purposes) (citations omitted). 16 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Visalakshi Yogaraj
v.
Washington Adventist Hospital
96-2467.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Feb 21, 1997.
108 F.3d 1375
Unpublished

108 F.3d 1375

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Visalakshi YOGARAJ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-2467.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 1997.
Decided Feb. 21, 1997.

Visalakshi Yogaraj, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley James Reed, Susan Berry Bloomfield, LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant's complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (1994). 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. Yogaraj v. Washington Adventist Hosp., No. CA-95-3217-AM (D.Md. Sept. 4, 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