Steven Jenkins v. Baltimore City Fire Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00125-SKG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999094592] [12-1582]

Appeal: 12-1582

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1582

STEVEN JENKINS; MICHAEL JOHNSON;
STAFFORD; RODNEY WILLIAMS,

THERESA

JONES;

JARRETT

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY
BALTIMORE,

FIRE

DEPARTMENT;

MAYOR

&

CITY

COUNCIL

OF

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge.
(1:10-cv-00125-SKG)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neal M. Janey, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF NEAL M. JANEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants.
George A. Nilson, City Solicitor,
William R. Phelan, Jr., Chief Solicitor, Sabrina Willis,
Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1582

Doc: 37

Filed: 04/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Five
(“BCFD”),
Jarrett

members

Steven
Stafford,

of

the

Jenkins,
and

Baltimore

Michael

Rodney

City

Fire

Johnson,

Williams,

Department

Theresa

appeal

the

Jones,
district

court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant,
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City (“the City”), in
their employment discrimination action. *

Although the district

court disposed of several of Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims,
on

appeal,

judgment

Plaintiffs

on

their

challenge

disparate

only

the

promotion

entry

claim.

of

summary

Finding

no

reversible error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010).

Robinson v.

Summary judgment is

appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“a

reasonable

jury

Summary judgment will be granted unless

could

return

a

verdict

for

the

nonmoving

party” on the evidence presented.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc.,

“Conclusory

477

U.S.

242,

248

(1986).

*

or

speculative

Plaintiffs do not appeal the district court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant BCFD on the ground that
it is not an entity that may be sued.

2

Appeal: 12-1582

Doc: 37

allegations
evidence

Filed: 04/25/2013

do

suffice,

support

in

not

of

Pg: 3 of 3

nor

does

[the

a

mere

nonmoving

scintilla

party’s]

of

case.”

Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
joint appendices and find no legal or factual basis to reverse
the

district

established

court’s

a

prima

conclusion

facie

case

that,

of

while

disparate

Plaintiffs

promotion,

see

Page v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir. 1981), they did
not

prove

employment
Plumbing

that

the

action

City’s

was

Prods.,

proffered

reason

pretextual.

Inc.,

530

See

U.S.

for

Reeves

133,

the
v.

146-48

adverse

Sanderson
(2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of
the

City

on

Plaintiffs’

disparate

promotion

reasons stated by the district court.

claim

for

the

Jenkins v. Balt. City

Fire Dep’t, No. 1:10-cv-00125-SKG (D. Md. filed Mar. 30, 2012 &
entered Apr. 2, 2012).

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3