Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-02282/USCOURTS-ca4-06-02282-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Paper Company
Appellee
Denise Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2282

DENISE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:05-cv-01949-DCN)

Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Mt. Pleasant, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Allan Riley Holmes, GIBBS & HOLMES,

Charleston, South Carolina; Vincent Miraglia, Carlos Enrique

Provencio, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Memphis, Tennessee, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-2282 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/18/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*

Although Washington also asserted claims against the

Defendant for wrongful termination in violation of South Carolina

public policy and in violation of Defendant’s anti-discrimination

policy, Washington does not challenge the district court’s

dismissal of these claims.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Denise Washington appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her claims for

wrongful discharge in violation of the Family and Medical Leave

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000), and for breach of her employee

handbook.* In accordance with 4th Cir. L. R. 45, we originally

dismissed Washington’s appeal for want of prosecution. Because

Washington has shown good cause to excuse the late filing of her

appellate brief and joint appendix, however, we recalled the

mandate and granted her petition to reinstate her appeal by

separate order. We have reviewed the record and affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Washington v. Int’l

Paper Co., No. 2:05-cv-01949-DCN (D.S.C. filed Nov. 2, 2006;

entered Nov. 3, 2006). 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: 06-2282 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/18/2007 Pg: 2 of 2