Susan Bearns v. James Potter
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN J. BEARNS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JAMES E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:06-cv-03085-DKC)
January 8, 2010
February 9, 2010
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheldon L. Gnatt, KNIGHT, MANZI, NUSSBAUM & LAPLACA, P.A., Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael P. Grady, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Susan J. Bearns appeals the district court's order
granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Bearns's civil action. On appeal, Bearns contends the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to the Defendant on her retaliation and hostile work environment claims. We affirm.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. (en banc). Jennings v. U.N.C., 482 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2007) "At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a `genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 Summary
U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 56(c). "[T]here is no issue for trial Fed. R. Civ. P. unless there is
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." 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 reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bearns v. Potter, 2 No. 8:06-cv-03085-DKC (D. Md. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Mar. 6, 2008).
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
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?