UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2378
JEANETTE PERRY-BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORFOLK, a municipal corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
REGINA WILLIAMS, individually and in her
official capacity as the City Manager of the
City of Norfolk; MELVIN C. HIGH, individually
and in his official capacity as the Chief of
the City of Norfolk Police Department; CAPTAIN
SHARON L. CHAMBERLIN, individually and in her
official capacity as a member of the City of
Norfolk Police Department; LIEUTENANT C. W.
BREWER, individually and in his official
capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk
Police Department; LIEUTENANT P. S. MIDGETT,
individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the City of Norfolk Police
Department; OFFICER JUDY HASH, individually
and in her official capacity as a member of
the City of Norfolk Police Department; OFFICER
D. J. POWELL, individually and in her official
capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk
Police Department,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-7-2)
Submitted: July 25, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeanette Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard Anthony Pishko, Joan
Elizabeth Mahoney, Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeanette Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of her former employer, the City of
Norfolk, in her civil action alleging retaliation in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3
(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
district court. See Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, No. CA-02-7-2
(E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2002). 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
3