Leeper v. Duke Energy Corp. , 54 F. App'x 180 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-1765
    GEORGE F. LEEPER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CA-98-17-3-V)
    Submitted:   December 30, 2002             Decided:   January 13, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Geraldine Sumter, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, WALLAS, ADKINS,
    GRESHAM & SUMTER, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Jill Stricklin Cox, John James Doyle, Jr., CONSTANGY, BROOKS &
    SMITH, L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    George F. Leeper appeals the district court’s order accepting
    the   recommendation   of   the   magistrate    judge   to   grant    summary
    judgment in the employer’s favor on Leeper’s claim that he was
    subjected to a racially hostile work environment. We have reviewed
    the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible
    error.   We agree with the district court that Leeper failed to
    forecast evidence sufficient to impute liability to the employer.
    See Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 
    242 F.3d 179
    , 183-84 (4th Cir.
    2001) (discussing prima facie case); Mikels v. City of Durham, 
    183 F.3d 323
    , 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999) (providing that “employers are
    liable only for their own negligence in failing, after actual or
    constructive knowledge, to take prompt and adequate action to stop
    [harassment by fellow employees].”). Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court.         See Leeper v. Duke Energy Corp.,
    No. CA-98-17-3-V (W.D.N.C. filed June 18, 2002; entered June 24,
    2002).   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1765

Citation Numbers: 54 F. App'x 180

Judges: Niemeyer, Luttig, Traxler

Filed Date: 1/13/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024