Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marie J. Clinton v. The Postmaster General of The United States, and Cawthorn & Picard, P.C. Johnston-Willis Hospital, 36 F.3d 1092, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Marie J. Clinton appealed a district court decision granting summary judgment to the United States Postal Service on her Title VII retaliation claim and dismissing her claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Clinton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut the legitimate reasons provided by the Postal Service for its actions. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Clinton's FTCA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a jurisdictional prerequisite for such claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-09-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 36 F.3d 1092 Docket: 93-2446

    Original Title

    Marie J. Clinton v. The Postmaster General of the United States, and Cawthorn & Picard, P.C. Johnston-Willis Hospital, 36 F.3d 1092, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Marie J. Clinton appealed a district court decision granting summary judgment to the United States Postal Service on her Title VII retaliation claim and dismissing her claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Clinton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut the legitimate reasons provided by the Postal Service for its actions. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Clinton's FTCA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a jurisdictional prerequisite for such claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    22 views2 pages

    Marie J. Clinton v. The Postmaster General of The United States, and Cawthorn & Picard, P.C. Johnston-Willis Hospital, 36 F.3d 1092, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Marie J. Clinton appealed a district court decision granting summary judgment to the United States Postal Service on her Title VII retaliation claim and dismissing her claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Clinton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut the legitimate reasons provided by the Postal Service for its actions. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Clinton's FTCA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a jurisdictional prerequisite for such claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    36 F.

    3d 1092

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Marie J. CLINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and CAWTHORN & PICARD, P.C.; Johnston-Willis Hospital,
    Defendants.
    No. 93-2446.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 14, 1994.
    Decided September 8, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-92-100-3)
    Marie J. Clinton, appellant pro se.
    Robert William Jaspen, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond,
    VA; Brian Michael Reimer, United States Postal Service, Washington,
    D.C., for appellee.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Marie J. Clinton appeals from the district court's order granting Defendant
    United States Postal Service's (USPS) summary judgment motion and
    dismissing her Title VII claim. Clinton asserted that the USPS retaliated against
    her for filing a federal lawsuit and several Equal Employment Opportunity
    claims by suspending her and forcing her to perform duties prohibited by her
    medical restrictions. She also appeals the district court's dismissal of her claim
    against the Defendants pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for
    failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

    Our review of the record and the materials filed in this Court discloses that this
    appeal is without merit. Clinton failed to establish a prima facie case of
    discrimination or reprisal. See Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759
    F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir.1985). Moreover, she failed to rebut the legitimate,
    nondiscriminatory reasons Defendant proffered to support its decision to
    terminate her. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
    253-56 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35
    (4th Cir.1991). We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary
    judgment for the USPS on the Title VII claim.

    Exhaustion of appropriate administrative remedies is a jurisdictional


    prerequisite to FTCA claims, 28 U.S.C.Sec. 2675(a) (1988); Plyler v. United
    States, 900 F.2d 41, 42 (4th Cir.1990), and there is no evidence on this record
    that Clinton exhausted her FTCA claim prior to bringing it in federal court.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this claim as well.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like