Case Name: Joan C. DAUGHETY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army; Michael Stewart, Colonel; John Ives, Installation Commander, Defendants-Appellees. The Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Amicus Supporting Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 260 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 07-1337
Parties: Joan C. DAUGHETY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army; Michael Stewart, Colonel; John Ives, Installation Commander, Defendants-Appellees. The Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Amicus Supporting Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Joan C. DAUGHETY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army; Michael Stewart, Colonel; John Ives, Installation Commander, Defendants-Appellees. The Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Amicus Supporting Appellant.
No. 07-1337.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 12, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 28, 2007.
Joel P. Bennett, Law Offices of Joel P. Bennett, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Stephen Z. Chertkof, Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Supporting Appellant.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joan C. Daughety appeals the magistrate judge's order granting Defendant's summary judgment motion on her discriminatory discharge claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). See Daughety v. Geren, No. 8:04-cv-02114-CBD (D. Md. filed March 20, 2006; entered March 21, 2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The jury's finding that the Defendant's proffered non-discriminatory reasons motivated its progressive discipline of Daughety-precludes Daughety's appellate challenge of discriminatory discharge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the magistrate judge. 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.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).