Case Name: Hilda BROADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Colonial & 21st Street, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-12
Citations: 1 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 00-1645
Parties: Hilda BROADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Colonial & 21st Street, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Hilda BROADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Colonial & 21st Street, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-1645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.
Decided Jan. 12, 2001.
Stanley E. Sacks, Sacks & Sacks, Norfolk, VA, for appellant. C. Kailani Mem-mer, Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Hilda Broady appeals the magistrate judge's order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., in this diversity action, in which Broady alleged that Boddie-Noell was negligent. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Broady v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., No. CA-99-1816-2 (E.D.Va. May 12, 2000). 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.
The case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp.2000).