Brandon Taylor v. Peninsula Regional Medical

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03794-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999595960].. [14-1271]

Appeal: 14-1271

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1271

BRANDON TAYLOR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PENINSULA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-03794-WMN)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

June 4, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, PC, Salisbury,
Maryland, for Appellant. Randi Klein Hyatt, Kevin M. Cox,
KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, P.A., Timonium, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1271

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brandon
granting

the

Taylor

appeals

Defendant’s

motion

the
for

district
summary

court’s

judgment

order
in

his

action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and 42
U.S.C. §
appeal,

1981 (2012) claiming retaliation discrimination.
Taylor

argues

that

the

Defendant’s

On

legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for his termination * were pretextual.
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.

Halpern v.

Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 460 (4th Cir.
2012).
genuine

Summary
dispute

judgment
as

to

any

is

appropriate

material

fact

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
56(a).

when
and

“there
the

is

no

movant

is

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Summary judgment will be granted unless “a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” on the
evidence presented.
242, 248 (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not

suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of
*

We agree with the district court that Taylor raised a
genuine issue of material fact with regard to the existence of
an adverse employment action.

2

Appeal: 14-1271

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

[the nonmoving party’s] case.”

Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power

Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in

contravention of Title VII, a plaintiff must prove (1) that []he
engaged in a protected activity,” as well as “(2) that h[is]
employer took an adverse employment action against h[im],” and
“(3) that there was a causal link between the two events.

A

prima facie retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 has the
same elements.”

Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., ___ F.3d

___, 2015 WL 2116849, at *13 (4th Cir. May 7, 2015) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinion
and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

Taylor v. Peninsula Reg’l

Med. Ctr., No. 1:12-cv-03794-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2014).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3