Case Name: Mary R. VESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, William J. HENDERSON; United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-06
Citations: 50 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 02-1154
Parties: Mary R. VESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, William J. HENDERSON; United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Mary R. VESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, William J. HENDERSON; United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1154.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 25, 2002.
Decided Nov. 6, 2002.
K. Kent Lively, III, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mary R. Vester appeals a district court's order granting the summary judgment motion of the Postmaster General of the United States ("Employer") in this employment discrimination action. We affirm.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the materials presented in the joint appendix, and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Vester v. Postmaster Gen., No. CA-99-355-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2001). 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.
Because we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment to Employer, we need not consider whether Employer is liable for punitive damages.