Washington v. International Paper

Filing 920071218

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2282

DENISE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-01949-DCN)

Submitted:

November 16, 2007

Decided:

December 18, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Allan Riley Holmes, GIBBS & HOLMES, Charleston, South Carolina; Vincent Miraglia, Carlos Enrique Provencio, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Denise Washington appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's summary judgment motion on her claims for wrongful discharge in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000), and for breach of her employee handbook.* In accordance with 4th Cir. L. R. 45, we originally Because

dismissed Washington's appeal for want of prosecution.

Washington has shown good cause to excuse the late filing of her appellate brief and joint appendix, however, we recalled the mandate and granted her petition to reinstate her appeal by

separate order.

We have reviewed the record and affirm for the See Washington v. Int'l

reasons stated by the district court.

Paper Co., No. 2:05-cv-01949-DCN (D.S.C. filed Nov. 2, 2006; entered Nov. 3, 2006). facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

Although Washington also asserted claims against the Defendant for wrongful termination in violation of South Carolina public policy and in violation of Defendant's anti-discrimination policy, Washington does not challenge the district court's dismissal of these claims. - 2 -

*