Court Opinion

ID: 1000046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:34:27.538005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:20.250088
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JULIA M. BARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY P. BARRILL, Individually
and as Sheriff of Monongalia
                                                                      No. 99-1823
County, West Virginia; COUNTY
COMMISSION OF MONONGALIA
COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, a
corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CA-98-107-1)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: October 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gregory Michael, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Richard M.
Yurko, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Julia M. Barr appeals the district court judgment granting summary
judgment to Anthony P. Barrill, Sheriff of Monongalia County, West
Virginia and the County Commission of Monongalia County. On
appeal, Barr claims that she was discharged from her position as a
secretary with the Sheriff's Department for patronage reasons. She
further claims that the district court erred in accepting the Chief Dep-
uty's affidavit claiming that the secretarial position, as restructured
under the new administration, was privy to policy-making and confi-
dential information. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a district court's decision to grant summary judgment
de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d
1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only
"if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admis-
sions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

We assume that Barr demonstrated that she was terminated from
her secretarial position because of her support for Barrill's opponent
in the Democratic primary. Nonetheless, Barr failed to refute the
Appellees' evidence that the secretarial position, as restructured,
related to political interests and was privy to confidential information.
See Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156, 1162 (4th Cir. 1997) (en
banc).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Barr v. Barrill, No. CA-98-107-1 (N.D.W. Va. May 20, 1999). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2