Whitney v. Cohen

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES D. WHITNEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 97-2716
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary of the
Department of Defense; NATIONAL
IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-97-183-A)
Submitted: December 29, 1998
Decided: January 13, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Charles D. Whitney, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Charles D. Whitney appeals from the district court's orders grant-
ing partial summary judgment to Appellees, entering judgment on the
jury verdict, and denying his motion for a new trial in his employment
discrimination and retaliation case. Whitney further challenges the
magistrate judge's discovery rulings and the district court's evidenti-
ary rulings. We affirm the district court's orders.
We review the trial court's discovery and evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion. See WLR Foods, Inc. v. Tysons Foods, Inc., 65
F.3d 1172, 1184 (4th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the record and
find no abuse of discretion. This court reviews a grant of summary
judgment de novo. See United States v. Kanasco, Ltd., 123 F.3d 209,
210 (4th Cir. 1997). The moving party must demonstrate that there
exists no genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The facts are considered in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). After reviewing the pleadings
and the transcripts of the hearing on the motion for summary judg-
ment, we find that the district court did not err in granting partial sum-
mary judgment to the Appellees on both the discrimination/
harassment and retaliation counts as to Whitney's claims regarding a
1993 performance evaluation, a 1993 EEO complaint, a 1994 transfer,
and hostile work environment. In addition, we conclude that the ver-
dict was clearly supported by the evidence presented at trial. See
Herold v. Hajoca Corp., 864 F.2d 317, 319-21 (4th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, the court did not err in denying Whitney's motion for
a new trial. See Klein v. Sears Roebuck and Co. , 773 F.2d 1421, 1428
(4th Cir. 1985).
We therefore affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
2
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
2