Rovilma Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company
- Decided
- July 25, 2005
- Docket
- 04-2093
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,244 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that in the absence of a specific objection, the district court need only review the record for clear error — (untitled) (2026)
- holding that in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17 — Shams v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021)
- noting that the Court need not conduct a de novo review “in the absence of a timely filed objection” — Miall v. City of Asheville (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Senior Judge HAMILTON joined.
OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge.
Rovilma Diamond sued her former employer, Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West 2003). For the reasons that follow, [*313] we affirm the order of the district court granting Colonial summary judgment on both claims.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rovilma Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, 416 F.3d 310 (2005)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.