Full text
Williams v. Charlottesville Sch
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2564
RHEVA A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHARLOTTESVILLE SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA,
Defendant.
No. 96-2692
RHEVA A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLOTTESVILLE SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant - Appellant,
and
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-50-3-C)
Submitted: April 30, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rheva A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Leigh Guynn, Thomas Edward Ullrich, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rheva A. Williams appeals the district court's orders adopting the reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in this action challenging the termination of her employment with the Charlottesville Public School System. The
School Board cross-appeals, challenging a single holding of the district court. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Char- lottesville Sch. Bd., No. CA-94-50-3-C (W.D. Va. Oct. 4, 1996; May
23, 1996). We deny the School Board's motion for certification of a question to the Virginia Supreme Court because the issue is not determinative of this appeal. See Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191,
1199 (4th Cir. 1989); Cross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 75, 75 (4th Cir. 1989); see also Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5:42. We dis-
pense 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.