Roberts v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. , 100 F. App'x 209 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2199
VICKIE L. MCIVER ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, Incorporated,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 03-2453
VICKIE L. MCIVER ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, Incorporated,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-398-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vickie L. McIver Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Penni Pearson
Bradshaw, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Vickie L. McIver Roberts
appeals the district court’s orders affirming the magistrate
judge’s order denying her appointment of counsel* and granting
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in her action
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Roberts v. Goodwill Indus.,
Inc., No. CA-03-398-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Sept. 17, 2003; entered Sept.
18, 2003 and Nov. 14, 2003). 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
*
Although Roberts’s appeal of the district court’s order
denying her motion for appointment of counsel was interlocutory
when filed, see Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir.
1987), the district court’s entry of judgment prior to our
consideration of the appeal confers jurisdiction upon this court to
entertain the matter under the doctrine of cumulative finality.
See Equip. Fin. Group v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345,
347 (4th Cir. 1992).
- 3 -