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)
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)
3d 1092
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.
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