Stultz v. Ponder

Filing 920070228

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1589

RENITA STULTZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAREN W. PONDER, as an individual and in her official capacity as Executive Director of The North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc.; THE NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, INC., a North Carolina not-for-profit corporation; SUSAN V. RUTH, as an individual and in her official capacity as Program and Planning Director of the North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cv-00646-BO)

Submitted:

February 7, 2007

Decided:

February 28, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janet J. Lennon, LAW OFFICE OF JANET J. LENNON, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Patricia T. Bartis, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: Renita Stultz appeals the district court's order granting Karen Ponder, Susan Ruth, and The North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc., summary judgment on the civil action she brought against them. On appeal, Stultz argues that the district court

erred in finding that she did not raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish that the Defendants' proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination were pretextual. She also alleges that the district court erred in denying her motion for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing. We have reviewed the briefs and the Accordingly, we Stultz v.

joint appendix and find no reversible error.

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Ponder, No. 5:03-cv-00646-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2006). 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

- 3 -