Diana Livingston v. General Electric Company
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DIANA K. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, also known as Ohmeda Medical/GE Medical; DATEX-OHMEDA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cv-03401-WDQ)
February 19, 2009
March 10, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bart Garry, LAW OFFICE OF BART GARRY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Aldana, Joseph O. Wilson, QUARLES & BRADY, LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Elena D. Marcuss, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Diana K. Livingston appeals a district court's order granting summary judgment to her employer on her retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This
court reviews a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.
See Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, Summary judgment may be
249 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2001).
granted only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [movant] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint and supplemental appendices, and the district court's
opinion, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm Livingston v. We
for the reasons stated by the district court.
Gen. Elec. Co., No. 1:05-cv-03401-WDQ (D. Md. May 7, 2008). dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?