Case Name: Tamara KLOPFENSTEIN, Appellant v. NATIONAL SALES AND SUPPLY, LLC t/d/b/a National Sales and Supply
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 323 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 08-2950
Parties: Tamara KLOPFENSTEIN, Appellant v. NATIONAL SALES AND SUPPLY, LLC t/d/b/a National Sales and Supply.
Judges: Before: McKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges, and STEARNS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 129–129

Head Matter:
Tamara KLOPFENSTEIN, Appellant v. NATIONAL SALES AND SUPPLY, LLC t/d/b/a National Sales and Supply.
No. 08-2950.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 13, 2009.
Filed: April 28, 2009.
Timothy M. Kolman, Esq., Timothy M. Kolman & Associates, Langhorne, PA, for Appellant.
Kandice J. Giurintano, Esq., Brian F. Jackson, Esq., Marcy L. McCullough, Esq., Menees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, PA, for National Sales and Supply, LLC.
Before: McKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges, and STEARNS, District Judge.
The Honorable Richard G. Steams, District Judge for the United States District Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Tamara Klopfenstein filed a complaint in September of 2007 against her former employer, National Sales and Supply, LLC., alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. After discovery closed, Klopfenstein filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her retaliation claim. National Sales filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of her employment discrimination claims. The District Court, in a well reasoned opinion, concluded that Klopfenstein had failed to establish a prima facie case for each of her claims. For that reason, the District Court denied Klopfenstein's motion and granted summary judgment on all of her claims in favor of National Sales. This timely appeal followed.
Klopfenstein argues that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment as to each of her claims. After de novo review of the record, we are not persuaded. For substantially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
. The District Court had jurisdiction over Klopfenstein's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have final order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a grant of summary judgment. Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir.2000).