Teresa Winful v. The Medical University of SC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-02150-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999902251]. [15-2331]

Appeal: 15-2331

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2331

TERESA WINFUL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GEORGE
OHLANDT;
capacities,

CECILE

KAMATH,

in

their

official

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:13-cv-02150-DCN)

Submitted:

July 25, 2016

Decided:

August 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lewis Mann Cromer, Ryan K. Hicks, J. LEWIS CROMER &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Bob
J. Conley, Caroline W. Cleveland, CLEVELAND & CONLEY, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-2331

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2331

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Teresa Winful appeals the district court’s order granting
the

Medical

motion

University

on

Winful’s

of

South

Carolina’s

retaliation

and

summary

gender

judgment

and

race

discrimination claims, which were brought pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2012) (Title VII). *
find no reversible error.
court’s

judgment.

We have reviewed the record and

Accordingly, we affirm the district

Winful

v.

The

Med.

Univ.

2:13-cv-02150-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2015).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

of

SC,

No.

We dispense with

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

Winful also asserted claims of age discrimination, in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2015);
discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012); and
civil conspiracy, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2012).
Winful stipulated to dismissal of these claims.

3