You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Parham v. Mid Atlantic Baking Co.

Citation: 459 F. App'x 231Docket: No. 11-2049

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; December 20, 2011; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Michelle Parham's appeal against the district court's dismissal of her discrimination complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been affirmed. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling, which was articulated in the case Parham v. Mid Atlantic Baking Co., No. 1:11-cv-00185-WDQ, 2011 WL 4527311 (D.Md. Sept. 26, 2011). The court decided against oral argument, concluding that the existing record sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues for resolution. The affirmation is based on the district court's reasoning, and the unpublished nature of the opinion indicates it does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Without Oral Argument

Application: The appellate court concluded that oral argument was unnecessary because the written record provided a sufficient basis for decision-making.

Reasoning: The court decided against oral argument, concluding that the existing record sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues for resolution.

Dismissal of ADA Discrimination Complaint

Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Michelle Parham's discrimination complaint under the ADA due to the absence of reversible error in the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: Michelle Parham's appeal against the district court's dismissal of her discrimination complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been affirmed.

Non-Precedential Nature of Unpublished Opinions

Application: The court noted that the unpublished opinion does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.

Reasoning: The unpublished nature of the opinion indicates it does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.