Vester v. Postmaster General of United States

 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1154 MARY R. VESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, William J. Henderson; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-355-1) Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. K. Kent Lively, III, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary R. Vester appeals a district court’s order granting the summary judgment motion of the Postmaster General of the United States (“Employer”) in this employment discrimination action. We affirm. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials presented in the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Vester v. Postmaster Gen., No. CA-99-355-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the * Because we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Employer, we need not consider whether Employer is liable for punitive damages. 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3