UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1823
SHIRLEY F. DANIELS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (CA-03-60-4)
Submitted: February 18, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas F. Hennessy, III, THOMAS F. HENNESSY, P.C., Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Virginia Van Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shirley F. Daniels appeals a district court’s order
granting summary judgment to her employer on her retaliation claim
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This court
reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts
in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix,
and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See
Daniels v. Rumsfeld, No. CA-03-60-4 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2004). 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
- 2 -