Case Name: Sandra D. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 223 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 06-1172
Parties: Sandra D. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 252–252

Head Matter:
Sandra D. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1172.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 9, 2007.
Decided: April 9, 2007.
Torrino Travell Travis, Law Office of Travell Travis, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana L. Rust, Kathleen M. McDaniel, McGuirewoods LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sandra D. Clark appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant Defendant's motion, filed pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 37(b), to dismiss Clark's civil action for failure to comply with the court's order compelling Clark to attend her noticed deposition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clark v. Siemens VDO Auto. Corp., No. 4:05-cv-00093-WDK (E.D.Va. Jan. 24, 2006) (accepting the findings of the magistrate judge). 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.