Lesia McCollough v. The Town of Southern Pine
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00192-WO-WWD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998634681]. [10-2030]
Appeal: 10-2030
Document: 23
Date Filed: 07/19/2011
Page: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2030
LESIA MCCOLLOUGH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE TOWN OF SOUTHERN PINES; JOHN LETTENEY, in his official
capacity as Chief of Police and in his individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
REAGAN PARSONS, in his official capacity as Town Manager and
in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00192-WO-WWD)
Submitted:
June 28, 2011
Decided:
July 19, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen A. Boyce, STEPHEN A. BOYCE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
M. Robin Davis, JACKSON LEWIS
L.L.P., Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-2030
Document: 23
Date Filed: 07/19/2011
Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Lesia
McCollough
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
granting summary judgment for Defendants, The Town of Southern
Pines
and
Chief
of
Police
John
Letteney,
employment discrimination action.
that
she
established
a
prima
and
dismissing
her
On appeal, McCollough argues
facie
case
of
discrimination,
specifically disparate disciplinary treatment based on sex, and
that Chief Letteney is not entitled to qualified immunity on her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) equal protection claim. 1
Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, “viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008); see also
Anderson
v.
Liberty
Lobby,
Inc.,
477
U.S.
242,
255
(1986).
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine
dispute
as
to
any
material
fact
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
56(a).
and
the
movant
is
Fed. R. Civ. P.
If the moving party sufficiently supports its motion for
1
McCollough has forfeited appellate review of her remaining
claims by failing to raise them in her opening brief.
See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999). To the extent she seeks to raise a claim of constructive
discharge for the first time on appeal, that claim is not
properly before us. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993).
2
Appeal: 10-2030
Document: 23
summary
judgment,
Date Filed: 07/19/2011
the
nonmoving
Page: 3 of 5
party
must
there are genuine issues of material fact.
demonstrate
that
Emmett, 532 F.3d at
297.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
prohibits “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect
to
h[er]
compensation,
employment,
because
of
terms,
such
conditions,
individual’s
U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (West 2003).
or
.
.
privileges
of
.
42
sex.”
Where there is no direct
evidence of discrimination, “a plaintiff may proceed under the
McDonnell Douglas 2 ‘pretext’ framework, under which the employee,
after
establishing
demonstrates
that
a
prima
the
facie
employer’s
case
proffered
of
discrimination,
permissible
reason
for taking an adverse employment action is actually a pretext
for discrimination.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 318 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted).
the
McDonnell
burden
Tex.
of
Douglas
persuasion
Dep’t
of
It is well established that, even under
Cmty.
burden-shifting
scheme,
remains
on
the
plaintiff
Affairs
v.
Burdine,
450
the
at
ultimate
all
U.S.
times.
248,
253
(1981).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
McCollough
2
failed
to
establish
a
prima
facie
case
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
3
that
Appeal: 10-2030
Document: 23
Date Filed: 07/19/2011
Page: 4 of 5
Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of sex where
none of the male comparators had engaged in similar or more
serious misconduct.
See Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d
507,
1993)
511
(4th
discriminatory
Cir.
(discussing
discipline).
prima
Likewise,
facie
we
case
conclude
of
that
McCollough has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with
respect
to
her
§ 1983
claim
against
Chief
Letteney.
See
Holder v. City of Raleigh, 867 F.2d 823, 828 (4th Cir. 1989)
(“Our
analysis
with
respect
to
Title
VII
plaintiff’s claims under . . . [§] 1983.”).
also
governs
Because McCollough
has not asserted a viable constitutional claim against Chief
Letteney, we have no occasion to consider whether he is entitled
to assert qualified immunity as a defense.
526
U.S.
603,
609
(1999)
(“A
court
See Wilson v. Layne,
evaluating
a
claim
of
qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff
has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at
all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was
clearly
established
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
violation.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
are
adequately
4
presented
in
the
materials
Appeal: 10-2030
before
Document: 23
the
court
Date Filed: 07/19/2011
and
argument
would
Page: 5 of 5
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
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?