UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1061
CAROLYN J. MELVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF GREENVILLE; DAVID BEST, in his indi-
vidual and official capacity; HOWARD CONNER,
in his individual and official capacity; CECIL
HARDY, in his individual and official capac-
ity; CHARLES HINMAN, in his individual and of-
ficial capacity; JOSEPH M. SIMONOWICH, in his
individual and official capacity; JOHN TEEL,
in his individual and official capacity; CITY
OF GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-96-66-4-H)
Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn J. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Holec, M. Blair
Carr, CITY OF GREENVILLE, Greenville, North Carolina; David Powell
Stillerman, Jr., Laurence S. Graham, GRAHAM & STILLERMAN, P.A.,
Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn J. Melvin appeals the district court’s order accepting
in part a magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting Defen-
dants’ motion for summary judgment in an action brought for viola-
tions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1994), for constructive discharge, and
for violation of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act
and public policy, and for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s
memorandum and recommendation, and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Melvin v. City of Greenville, No. CA-
96-66-4-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 1998). 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
2