Case ID: f-appx_45/html/0250-01.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

Robert N. LAPORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-1015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2002.
    Decided Sept. 4, 2002.
    Joe C. Ashworth, Leonardtown, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Robert N. LaPorte, a United States Post Office employee, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States, in LaPorte’s employment discrimination action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2001).

On appeal, LaPorte argues that the district court erred in holding statements he and his daughter made regarding his frustration with the Post Office were insufficient to substantiate his claims of pain, suffering, and emotional distress, and in so doing, rejecting his prayer for compensatory damages. We review the district court’s order de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to LaPorte. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). LaPorte’s claim is meritless; the district court did not err in holding that the brief and conclusory statements LaPorte offered failed to substantiate his claim for compensatory damages. Hetzel v. Prince William County, 89 F.3d 169, 171 (4th Cir.1996).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.