Sandra Hodges v. Psychiatric Professional Servi, et al


Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Ralph B. Guy , Jr., Circuit Judge; R. Guy Cole , Jr., Circuit Judge and John M. Rogers, Circuit Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 11-3023 Document: 006111279299 Filed: 04/19/2012 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0431n.06 No. 11-3023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Apr 19, 2012 SANDRA HODGES, LEONARD GREEN, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant, v. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.; UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, Defendants-Appellants. / Before: GUY, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Sandra Hodges appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of the University of Cincinnati and Psychiatric Professional Services, Inc., on her claims of employment discrimination on the basis of age and gender, as well as retaliation for taking FMLA leave and wrongful termination for consulting an attorney in violation of Ohio public policy. After de novo review of the record and consideration of the arguments presented on appeal, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we are convinced that there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial and that the district court did not err in its conclusions as to any of the issues raised on appeal. Because the district court’s opinion clearly articulates the reasons for its decision, issuance of a detailed written opinion by this Case: 11-3023 Document: 006111279299 No. 11-3023 Filed: 04/19/2012 Page: 2 2 court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendants, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?