Donnise Batton v. Communication Workers

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00426-MSD-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999674610].. [14-1889]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-1889 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/08/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1889 DONNISE BATTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF INCORPORATED, WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; COMMUNICATION AMERICA, LOCAL 2202; VERIZON VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00426-MSD-LRL) Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: October 8, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard F. Hawkins, III, HAWKINS LAW FIRM, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. SuAnne Hardee Bryant, DAVIS LAW GROUP, PC, Chesapeake, Virginia; Linda M. Martin, WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patricia A. Dunn, JONESDAY, Washington, D.C.; Brandon J. Lester, JONESDAY, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-1889 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/08/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Donnise Batton appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action filed pursuant to Section 301 of the Laobr Management Relations Act. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm Batton v. for the Commc’ns reasons Workers (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2014). stated by Am., No. of the We have Accordingly, district court. 2:13-cv-00426-MSD-LRL We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?