Tina M. Parrelli-Ball v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Henry M. Paulson

Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
*
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0528n.06
Filed: July 25, 2007
Case No. 06-6276
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TINA M. PARRELLI-BALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY, Henry M. Paulson,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; ROSEN, District Judge.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Tina M. Parrelli-Ball was an employee of the
Internal Revenue Service, a division of the Treasury Department. Ms. Parrelli-Ball retired in 1989
and began receiving disability benefits for an anxiety condition. In 1990 she settled a previously
filed discrimination claim against the IRS and received $11,000, but also agreed to never again seek
employment with the IRS. In 2004 she pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of making a false
statement on a compensation form, and the federal court sentenced her to home detention and
probation, ordered her to pay restitution and a fine, and terminated her disability benefits.
Thereafter, she filed renewed discrimination and retaliation charges against the IRS and when
the charges were dismissed by the Treasury Department and then the EEOC, she filed a civil

-- 1 of 2 --

2
complaint in federal district court. The defendant Treasury Department moved for summary
judgment and Ms. Parrelli-Ball responded by moving for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(f). The district court denied her motion and granted summary judgment to the Treasury
Department. Ms. Parrelli-Ball appealed, arguing that she was entitled to a Rule 56(f) continuance
and for that reason the grant of summary judgment was improper.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the
district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies that law to the facts
contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --