Susan Bearns v. James Potter

Filing 920100209

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1523

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)

Submitted:

January 8, 2010

Decided:

February 9, 2010

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

process. AFFIRMED

3