UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1523
SUSAN J. BEARNS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:06-cv-03085-DKC)
Submitted: January 8, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheldon L. Gnatt, KNIGHT, MANZI, NUSSBAUM & LAPLACA, P.A., Upper
Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Michael P. Grady, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Susan J. Bearns appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Bearns’s civil
action. On appeal, Bearns contends the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to the Defendant on her retaliation
and hostile work environment claims. We affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo. Jennings v. U.N.C., 482 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2007)
(en banc). “At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there
is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550
U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Summary
judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to
return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
parties’ briefs and the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Bearns v. Potter, No. 8:06-cv-03085-DKC (D. Md.
2
Mar. 6, 2008). 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
3