UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1895
ROSELYN WISE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; SHAKURA ELLISON;
JACKIE ROGERS; JONTE COLCLOUGH; ALLISON CORBITT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-02161-MGL)
Submitted: June 28, 2021 Decided: July 26, 2021
Before KEENAN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sarah J. M. Cox, BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A. Davis, Tierney F. Dukes, BOYKIN &
DAVIS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roselyn Wise appeals the district court’s order and judgment accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants
on Wise’s claim that she was terminated from her position with the South Carolina
Department of Revenue (“DOR”) in retaliation for using leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 26011-2654. * We conclude that the district court
properly found that Wise was precluded from relitigating whether she engaged in the
conduct that led to her termination. We further conclude that the DOR offered a legitimate
reason for terminating Wise’s employment and that Wise failed to highlight a genuine
dispute of material fact that undermines that reason or demonstrates that the reason was
pretextual.
We have considered the parties’ arguments and reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Wise v. S.C. Dep’t
of Revenue, No. 3:18-cv-02161-MGL (D.S.C. July 23, 2020). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Wise does not challenge the dismissal of her state law claims for defamation and
civil conspiracy.
2