Mefford v. Wilkins Buick Inc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1279
VINCENTA MEFFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILKINS BUICK, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-1483-H)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 18, 1999
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan H. Legum, Rebecca B. Brugger, ALAN HILLIARD LEGUM, P.A.,
Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Nevett Steele, Jr., Carolyn C.
Williamson, NEVETT STEELE, JR., P.A., Towson, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vincenta Mefford appeals the district court's order granting
summary judgment in her employer's favor in this age discrimination
action. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the
district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We agree
with the district court that the isolated statements on which
Mefford relied did not amount to "direct evidence of a stated
purpose to discriminate [on the basis of age] and/or circumstantial
evidence of a stated purpose to discriminate [on the basis of age]
of sufficient probative force to reflect a genuine issue of mate-
rial fact." EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 941 (4th Cir.
1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accord-
ingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district
court. See Mefford v. Wilkins Buick, Inc., No. CA-98-1483-H (D. Md.
Feb. 5, 1999). 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