Case Name: Kimberly M. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Donetta M. D'INNOCENZO; John R. McCarty; Gary E. Crowell; Donald E. Gibas; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of the General Services; Steven Garner; Gregory Green
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-22
Citations: 55 F. App'x 92
Docket Number: No. 02-1631
Parties: Kimberly M. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Donetta M. D'INNOCENZO; John R. McCarty; Gary E. Crowell; Donald E. Gibas; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of the General Services; Steven Garner; Gregory Green.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
Kimberly M. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Donetta M. D'INNOCENZO; John R. McCarty; Gary E. Crowell; Donald E. Gibas; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of the General Services; Steven Garner; Gregory Green.
No. 02-1631.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 10, 2003.
Decided Jan. 22, 2003.
Before SCIRICA, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge.
Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the factual underpinnings of this case, we note simply that appellant Kimberly M. Davis filed a complaint on August 9, 1999 against her employer, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services ("DGS"), and several individual supervisors, alleging discrimination on the basis of race. Appellant raised her non-selection for a position in the Department, as well as various disciplinary suspensions she says she received on the basis of her race and one or more suspensions in retaliation for her having engaged in protected activities.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1381, 1343, and 1367. Appellate jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We will affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendants substantially for the reasons set forth in the lengthy and comprehensive opinion of the District Court. We agree with the District Court that, among other reasons, appellant's allegations are too conclusory and generalized to engender a material issue of fact as to whether or not discriminatory animus and not legitimate rationales un-dergirded defendant's employment decisions.