Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01394/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clifton Elliott
Appellee
Gail Evans
Appellant
Ronald Hampton
Appellee
Williamsburg Technical College
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1394

GAIL EVANS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL COLLEGE; CLIFTON

ELLIOTT, a/k/a Rusty Elliott, individually and

in his official capacity as agent and Dean of

Instruction of Williamsburg Technical College;

RONALD HAMPTON, in his official position as

acting President of Williamsburg Technical

College,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:03-cv-03939-TLW)

Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James L. Bell, THE BELL LAW FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Karla McLawhorn Hawkins, BOYKIN,

DAVIS & HAWKINS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1394 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gail Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary

judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of

discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment brought

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), her claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2000), and her state law claim of intentional infliction of

emotional distress. This court reviews a district court’s grant of

summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment may only be

granted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

. . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have

reviewed the materials before us on appeal and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Evans v. Williamsburg Tech. Coll., No.

4:03-cv-03939-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2007). 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: 07-1394 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 2