Narrative Opinion Summary
Priscilla A. Freire's appeal against the district court's order granting summary judgment to Keystone Title Settlement Services, Inc. in her employment discrimination case has been affirmed. The court found no reversible error upon reviewing the record and upheld the district court's reasoning. The decision was issued as an unpublished PER CURIAM opinion, which is not considered binding precedent in the circuit. The court opted not to hold oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.
Legal Issues Addressed
Non-Binding Nature of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case was issued as an unpublished opinion, indicating it is not considered binding precedent within the circuit.
Reasoning: The decision was issued as an unpublished PER CURIAM opinion, which is not considered binding precedent in the circuit.
Review of District Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the record and determined there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to grant summary judgment.
Reasoning: The court found no reversible error upon reviewing the record and upheld the district court's reasoning.
Summary Judgment in Employment Discrimination Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's grant of summary judgment to Keystone Title Settlement Services, Inc. was affirmed, indicating that the court found no genuine dispute of material fact in the employment discrimination claim brought by Priscilla A. Freire.
Reasoning: Priscilla A. Freire's appeal against the district court's order granting summary judgment to Keystone Title Settlement Services, Inc. in her employment discrimination case has been affirmed.
Waiver of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided not to hold oral argument, suggesting that the written submissions sufficiently addressed the relevant facts and legal issues.
Reasoning: The court opted not to hold oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.