Opinion ID: 4528302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the Magistrate Judge’s grant of summary judgment de novo, making all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.14 Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party 10 J.A. 127-28. 11 Gardiner originally brought a claim under the American with Disabilities Act, an interference claim under the FMLA, and a claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. However, Gardiner expressly abandoned those claims and proceeded solely with her claim for retaliation under the FMLA. 12 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge for all pretrial and trial proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 13 The District Court had federal question jurisdiction over Gardiner’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 14 Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181, 189 (3d Cir. 2013). 4 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,15 and we may affirm the grant of summary judgment on any basis supported by the record.16