Case Name: Gia P. HEGRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTO-CULVER USA, INC., d.b.a. Beauty Systems Group, Inc., d.b.a. Macon Beauty Systems, d.b.a. Sally Beauty Company, Sally Beauty Company, Beauty Systems Group, Inc., d.b.a. Macon Beauty Systems, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 275 F. App'x 873
Docket Number: No. 07-12461
Parties: Gia P. HEGRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTO-CULVER USA, INC., d.b.a. Beauty Systems Group, Inc., d.b.a. Macon Beauty Systems, d.b.a. Sally Beauty Company, Sally Beauty Company, Beauty Systems Group, Inc., d.b.a. Macon Beauty Systems, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 873–873

Head Matter:
Gia P. HEGRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTO-CULVER USA, INC., d.b.a. Beauty Systems Group, Inc., d.b.a. Macon Beauty Systems, d.b.a. Sally Beauty Company, Sally Beauty Company, Beauty Systems Group, Inc., d.b.a. Macon Beauty Systems, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-12461.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 29, 2008.
John Paul Batson, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kathleen Elizabeth Mones, John T. Murray, Cheryl Barnes Legare, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BLACK and FARRIS , Circuit Judges.
Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gia Hegre appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, Beauty Systems Group (BSG), on three claims: (1) a retaliation claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) a § 1981 retaliation claim; and (3) an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. After carefully reviewing the record and the district court's opinion and considering oral arguments, we affirm the judgment.
The district court did not err in concluding Hegre failed to show a reasonable belief that she was disabled for purposes of the ADA and in granting BSG summary judgment on the ADA retaliation claim on that ground. The court also did not err in its analysis and disposition of Hegre's § 1981 retaliation claim. These two claims having been dismissed, the court did not err in dismissing Hegre's state law claim due to lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.