Evans v. Williamsburg Technical College

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1394
GAIL EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL COLLEGE; CLIFTON
ELLIOTT, a/k/a Rusty Elliott, individually and
in his official capacity as agent and Dean of
Instruction of Williamsburg Technical College;
RONALD HAMPTON, in his official position as
acting President of Williamsburg Technical
College,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:03-cv-03939-TLW)
Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James L. Bell, THE BELL LAW FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Karla McLawhorn Hawkins, BOYKIN,
DAVIS & HAWKINS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gail Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary
judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of
discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment brought
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), her claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000), and her state law claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress. This court reviews a district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment may only be
granted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
. . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have
reviewed the materials before us on appeal and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Evans v. Williamsburg Tech. Coll., No.
4:03-cv-03939-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2007). 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 -