Court Opinion

ID: 990939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:29:18.21403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:47.682787
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KATHLEEN M. MENEFEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER
COMPANY; WILL T. DAVIS; CHRIS E.
                                                                 No. 96-1439
BLAIR; NANCY NEWMAN; E. R.
HERMANN; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED;
SAVANNAH RIVER DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-93-1812-1-6BD)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: December 5, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kathleen M. Menefee, Appellant Pro Se. Laura H. Walter, GLASS,
MCCULLOUGH, SHERRILL & HARROLD, Washington, D.C.;
Terri Hearn Bailey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR-
NEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen M. Menefee appeals from the district court's orders dis-
missing her employment discrimination and retaliation action. Mene-
fee pled discrimination on the basis of race.

Our review of the record and the district court's opinions disclose
that this appeal is without merit. First, we find that Menefee's previ-
ously filed interlocutory appeal of the district court's April 29, 1994,
denial of her motion to appoint counsel, while ripe at this juncture,
is without merit given that there were no complex or substantial
issues presented in the case. Next, we find that because the district
court's June 2 and 12, 1995, orders dismissing certain named Defen-
dants and claims were based on the consent of all parties, the dis-
missals were proper. The district court's November 1, 1995, order
disposing of all claims except Menefee's retaliation claim against
Defendant Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and her claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Nancy
Newman and E.R. Hermann, M.D., is not reviewable because Mene-
fee failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's report and rec-
ommendation after receiving proper notice that the failure to object
will waive appellate review.*

Finally, we find that the district court's order accepting the recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge, and dismissing Menefee's remain-
_________________________________________________________________
*See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see gen-
erally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

                    2
ing claims of retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, was proper. Even assuming that Menefee established a prima
facie case of retaliation, she failed to disprove the legitimate, nondis-
criminatory reason Defendants proffered to support their ultimate ter-
mination of Menefee. See McNairn v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980
(4th Cir. 1991); Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d
355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Plus, her state law claim is barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-540 (Law. Co-op. 1985); Dickert v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 428 S.E.2d 700, 701 (S.C. 1993). We
therefore affirm the dismissal of this action on the reasoning of the
district court. Menefee v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., No. CA-
93-1812-1-6BD (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3