Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-02276/USCOURTS-ca4-06-02276-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John E. Potter
Appellee
Julie Ragsdale
Appellant

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 06-2276 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/12/2007 Pg: 1 of 6
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 April 12, 2007

 Clerk, U. S. District Court

 U. S. DISTRICT COURT

 Room 239

 Federal Building

 300 East Washington Street

 Greenville, SC 29601

 Re: 06-2276 Ragsdale v. Potter

 8:05-cv-00142-RBH

 06-2277 Striss v. Potter

 8:04-cv-22435-HFF

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding these cases for

 limited purpose. Please notify this office of the district court's

 ruling on remand.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Barbara H. Rowe

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Julie Ragsdale

 Lora M. Taylor

 Adele Striss

Appeal: 06-2276 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/12/2007 Pg: 2 of 6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2276

JULIE RAGSDALE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States

Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 06-2277

ADELE STRISS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, Henry F. Floyd,

District Judges. (8:05-cv-00142-RBH; 8:04-cv-22435-HFF)

Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007

Appeal: 06-2276 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/12/2007 Pg: 3 of 6
- 2 -

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julie Ragsdale, Adele Striss, Appellants Pro Se. Lora M. Taylor,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-2276 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/12/2007 Pg: 4 of 6
- 3 -

PER CURIAM: 

Adele Striss and Julie Ragsdale, career employees of the

United States Postal Service (“USPS”), each filed separate civil

complaints against the USPS. Amy Gaffney served as counsel for

both Striss and Ragsdale. Each complaint asserted that the

plaintiff was the victim of gender and race discrimination and

retaliation for protected conduct when they were denied certain

temporary details and/or permanent assignments. The USPS filed

motions for summary judgment that stated its alleged reasons for

denying Striss and Ragsdale the details and permanent positions.

A magistrate judge issued a report and recommended that the

district court grant the motions. Striss and Ragsdale filed

objections to the report; however, the district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted summary

judgment to the USPS in each case. 

Following the dismissals, Gaffney entered into a

settlement agreement with USPS in which she agreed, purportedly on

behalf of Striss and Ragsdale, that neither would appeal the

district court’s judgment in exchange for the USPS forgoing the

right to pursue costs from either woman. Striss and Ragsdale,

nonetheless, timely appealed pro se. The USPS has now filed a

motion to dismiss both appeals based on the settlement agreement.

Striss and Ragsdale have responded, arguing they did not agree to

settle and Gaffney had no authority to enter into a settlement

Appeal: 06-2276 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/12/2007 Pg: 5 of 6
*A finding of express or apparent authority is necessary for

Gaffney’s actions to bind Striss or Ragsdale because an attorney

does not possess implied authority to enter into a settlement

agreement. See Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 541 n.*

(4th Cir. 2002) (citing Auvil v. Grafton Homes, Inc., 92 F.3d 226,

229-30 (4th Cir. 1996)).

- 4 -

agreement on their behalf. “[I]f there is a material dispute about

. . . the authority of an attorney to enter a settlement agreement

on behalf of his client, a trial court must conduct a plenary

evidentiary hearing to resolve that dispute.” Columbus-America

Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 298 (4th

Cir. 2000). Because there is a material dispute as to whether

Gaffney had the express or apparent authority to enter into a

settlement agreement on Striss and Ragsdale’s behalf,* we remand

these appeals to the district court for the limited purpose of

making this determination. We suggest that, for purposes of this

limited remand only, these cases be administratively consolidated

in the district court and assigned to the same district judge. The

cases will then be returned to this court for further proceedings.

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.

REMANDED

Appeal: 06-2276 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/12/2007 Pg: 6 of 6