Mary Ann Peckham v. Gale A. Norton

Filing 920060427

Opinion

Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 05-14364 _____________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 02-03256-CV-WBH-1 MARY ANN PECKHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GALE A. NORTON, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ____________ (April 27, 2006) Before CARNES, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal, appellant-plaintiff Mary Ann Peckham (Peckham) appeals (1) the grant by the district court of summary judgment in favor of Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), and (2) the district court's affirmance of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), upholding her termination by the National Park Service. In so doing , the district court found against Peckham (1) on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., and (2) against the merits system nondiscrimination component of her case under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b), 7701 and 7703(c)), as being procedurally improper. After carefully reviewing the record on appeal, and reading the parties' briefs, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DOI and also its affirmance of the MSPB, based on the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge dated April 27, 2005, and the judgment of the district court adopting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing Peckham's action dated June 6, 2005. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?