Lorraine Little v. John Potter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998517775-2] Originating case number: 3:09-cv-00886-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998631566]. Mailed to: Lorraine Little. [11-1082]

Appeal: 11-1082

Document: 14

Date Filed: 07/14/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1082

LORRAINE LITTLE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, a/k/a United States Post Office, Postmaster
General,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00886-JFA)

Submitted:

June 30, 2011

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

July 14, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorraine Little, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, Barbara
Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1082

Document: 14

Date Filed: 07/14/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lorraine Little appeals the district court’s grant of
summary

judgment

in

favor

of

John

E.

Potter,

the

Postmaster

General of the United States Postal Service, on Little’s claim
of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (2006). *

We

affirm.
We review de novo an award of summary judgment.

PCS

Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.
2009).
district

Little contends on appeal that a jury, rather than the
court,

should

determine

whether

her

dismissal

was

motivated by retaliation for her assertion of rights protected
under Title VII.

However, the district court did not err in

concluding that Little failed to offer sufficient evidence that
Potter’s nondiscriminatory reason for the dismissal “was false,
and that discrimination was the real reason for the challenged
action.”

Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 218

(4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Therefore,

the district court properly awarded summary judgment on this
claim.

*

Little’s claim of hostile work environment proceeded to
trial, and the jury’s verdict in favor of Little on that claim
is not before us.

2

Appeal: 11-1082

Document: 14

Date Filed: 07/14/2011

Page: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we deny Little’s motion for appointment
of

counsel

dispense

and

with

affirm
oral

the

argument

district
because

court’s
the

judgment.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3