Patricia Marzett v. Charleston County School Dist.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-03932-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000152011]. Mailed to: Patricia Marzett. [17-1321]

Appeal: 17-1321

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1321

PATRICIA MITCHELL MARZETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL
individually and in his official capacity,

DISTRICT;

JAMES

WINBUSH,

Defendants - Appellees,
and
MELVIN MIDDLETON, individually and in his official capacity,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:14-cv-03932-RMG)

Submitted: August 28, 2017

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: September 8, 2017

Appeal: 17-1321

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Patricia Mitchell Marzett, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth J. Palmer, ROSEN, ROSEN &
HAGOOD, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1321

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/08/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Patricia Mitchell Marzett appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Marzett v. Charleston Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:14-cv-03932-RMG (D.S.C.
Feb. 14, 2017). * 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

*

To the extent Marzett argues that the Defendants denied her due process by
declining her request for a hearing, because this claim was not raised in her complaint, it
is not properly before us. See Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599,
617 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff may not raise new claims after discovery has begun
without amending [her] complaint.”). In addition, we reject Marzett’s claim that the
district court erred in not granting her additional discovery, because she failed to explain
how the requested discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact and how she
was prevented from obtaining it during the discovery window set by the magistrate judge.
See Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927, 931 (4th Cir. 2014).

3