Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01337/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01337-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1337

JOAN C. DAUGHETY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PETE GEREN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the

Army; MICHAEL STEWART, Colonel; JOHN IVES,

Installation Commander,

Defendants - Appellees.

---------------------------------------------

THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

ASSOCIATION,

Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (8:04-

cv-02114-CBD)

Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joel P. Bennett, LAW OFFICES OF JOEL P. BENNETT, P.C., Washington,

D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,

Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,

Appeal: 07-1337 Doc: 43 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Maryland, for Appellee. Stephen Z. Chertkof, HELLER, HURON,

CHERTKOF, LERNER, SIMON & SALZMAN, Washington, D.C., for Amicus

Supporting Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1337 Doc: 43 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Joan C. Daughety appeals the magistrate judge’s* order

granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her discriminatory

discharge claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000).

See Daughety v. Geren, No. 8:04-cv-02114-CBD (D. Md. filed March

20, 2006; entered March 21, 2006). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. The jury’s finding that the Defendant’s

proffered non-discriminatory reasons motivated its progressive

discipline of Daughety -- precludes Daughety’s appellate challenge

of discriminatory discharge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the magistrate judge. 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

Appeal: 07-1337 Doc: 43 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 3 of 3