Mizell v. Sara Lee Corp, No. 05-1754 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed: January 4, 2006 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1754 (CA-05-129-2-JBF) TAMMY S. MIZELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARA LEE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed December 13, 2005, as follows: On page 1, attorney information section -- John Michael Loeschen, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant is deleted and replaced with Tammy S. Mizell, Appellant Pro Se. For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1754 TAMMY S. MIZELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARA LEE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-05-129-2-JBF) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tammy S. Mizell, Appellant Pro Se. John Richard Erickson, REED SMITH, L.L.P., Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tammy S. Mizell appeals the district court s denying Mizell s breach of employment contract claim. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. order We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mizell v. Sara Lee Corp., No. CA-05-129-2-JBF (E.D. Va. June 10, 2005). 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 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
