Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0792-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rose GLORIOSO-BRANDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric HARGAN, Acting Secretary, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1863
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: January 8, 2018
    Rose Glorioso-Brandt, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Lombardo Cusson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rose Glorioso-Brandt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer in Glorioso-Brandt’s employment discrimination action. “[W]e review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Id. at 568 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to ... the non-moving party.” Id. at 565 n.1 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving party must rely on more than eonclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).

We have reviewed the arguments pressed on appeal in conjunction with the record, which includes the transcript of a five-day administrative hearing. On this record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s rejection of Glorioso-Brandt’s employment discrimination claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Glorioso-Brandt v. Price, No. 1:16-cv-04025-JFM (D. Md. July 13, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED