Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0186-01.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

Patricia Mitchell MARZETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; James Winbush, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Melvin Middleton, individually and in his official capacity, Defendant.
    No. 17-1321
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 28, 2017
    Decided: September 8, 2017
    Patricia Mitchell Marzett, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth J. Palmer, ROSEN, ROSEN & HAGOOD, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges,
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Mitchell Marzett appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marzett v. Charleston Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:14-cv-03932-RMG, 2017 WL 589110 (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 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 
      
       To the extent Marzett argues that the Defendants denied her due process by declining her request for a hearing, because this claim was not raised in her complaint, it is not properly before us. See Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 617 (4th Cir. 2009) ("[A] plaintiff may not raise new claims after discovery has begun without amending [her] complaint.”). In addition, we reject Marzett's claim that the district court erred in not granting her additional discovery, because she failed to explain how the requested discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact and how she was prevented from obtaining it during the discovery window set by the magistrate judge. See Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927, 931 (4th Cir. 2014).