Kim Allen-Plowden v. National Healthcare of Sumter
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KIM L. ALLEN-PLOWDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE OF SUMTER; CAROL BROWN, Defendants - Appellees, and BRENDA FLANAGAN; JEANIE S. CROTTS, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00420-JFA)
December 11, 2008
December 15, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim L. Allen-Plowden, Appellant Pro Se. FORD & HARRISON, LLP, Spartanburg, Appellees.
Jeffrey Andrew Lehrer, South Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kim L. Allen-Plowden appeals the district court's
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer and dismissing her complaint alleging employment discrimination and defamation. 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. Doe v.
Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the discovery show and disclosure there is materials no on file, issue as and to any any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record
Accordingly, we affirm for the Allen-Plowden v. Nat'l (D.S.C. June 4,
reasons stated by the district court. Healthcare 2008). legal before of Sumter, No.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials 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?