Maria Fernandez v. Michael Hayden

Filing 920090112

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1118

MARIA C. FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, Security Agency, Lt. General, Director of National

Defendant ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-cv-03009-JFM)

Submitted:

December 31, 2008

Decided:

January 12, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry B. Blair, Baltimore, Maryland; William T. Glasgow, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Maria C. Fernandez appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Fernandez's civil action and denying her motions to alter or amend judgment, for a protective order, and to compel. On appeal, Fernandez contends

the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow her to conduct discovery as to count one of her complaint prior to summary judgment, and the district court erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence of disparate treatment, of retaliatory action, and that Fernandez's alleged harassment was based on her gender to survive summary judgment. We affirm.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d

208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 955 (2008). We review for abuse of discretion the district court's refusal to allow discovery prior to granting summary judgment. Harrods

Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002); Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery show and disclosure there is materials no on file, issue as and to any any

affidavits

that

genuine

material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 2 "[T]here is no issue

for

trial

unless

there

is

sufficient

evidence

favoring

the

nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons See Fernandez v. Hayden, No. 23, 2007; Aug. 27, 2007; We

stated by the district court. 1:04-cv-03009-JFM (D. Md. Oct.

Apr. 2, 2007; Aug. 25, 2006; Aug. 24, 2006; Sept. 26, 2005). 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