Court Opinion

ID: 991193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:33:11.027669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:31.195755
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CONNIE D. JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,                                                      No. 95-3191
Defendant-Appellee,

and

PAUL BOULEY; ROGER BURACKER,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-94-173-NN)

Argued: December 5, 1996

Decided: January 8, 1997

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jeffrey M. Jordan, PENINSULA LEGAL AID CENTER,
INC., Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Lori Joan Dym, Legal Pol-
icy, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Andrew German, Managing Counsel,
Legal Policy, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington,
D.C.; Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, George M. Kelley, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Connie D. Jones brought this action against her former employer,
the Postmaster General of the United States, and two individuals,
alleging various acts of illegal employment discrimination and retalia-
tion. Jones presently appeals from a judgment entered against her fol-
lowing a trial of her claims; she asserts that the district court erred in
refusing to permit her to introduce the testimony of two witnesses on
the grounds that she had failed to timely name them in compliance
with a district court order directing disclosure of all witnesses by a
specified date prior to trial. We conclude, however, that because
Jones failed to proffer the substance of the witnesses' proposed testi-
mony, she may not prevail on appeal. See United States v. Clements,
73 F.3d 1330, 1336 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding alleged error in exclusion
of testimony was not properly preserved because"`the substance of
the evidence was [not] made known to the court by offer'" and was
not "`apparent from the context within which questions were asked'")
(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2)). In the absence of a proffer of their
testimony, we are unable to conclude that Jones' substantial rights
were impacted by the refusal of the district court to permit the testi-
mony of the witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

                     2