Kisha Davis v. Medical University of SC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying proceed in forma pauperis Originating case number: 2:14-cv-03152-MGB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930804].. [16-1483]

Appeal: 16-1483

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1483

KISHA MARIE DAVIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Physicians MUSC-P,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate
Judge. (2:14-cv-03152-MGB)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kisha Marie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Andreas Neal Satterfield,
Jr., John Sulau, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1483

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

Davis

the

PER CURIAM:
Kisha

Marie

appeals

magistrate

judge’s *

order

granting Medical University of South Carolina summary judgment
on her claims, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave
Act,

29

U.S.C.

Disabilities
Discrimination

§§ 2601-2654

Act,
in

42

U.S.C.

Employment

U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634

(2012),

the

§§ 12101-12213
Act

of

1967,

Americans
(2012),
as

the

amended,

with
Age
29

(West 2008 & Supp. 2016), and Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2012).
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we deny Davis’ application to

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by
the magistrate judge.

See Davis v. Med. Univ. of S.C., No.

2:14-cv-03152-MGB (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016).

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

*

The
parties
consented
to
the
magistrate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

2

judge’s