Mary R. Vester v. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, William J. Henderson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1154
MARY R. VESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
William J. Henderson; UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-99-355-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
K. Kent Lively, III, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* Because we affirm the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Employer, we need not consider whether Employer
is liable for punitive damages.
2
PER CURIAM:
Mary R. Vester appeals a district court’s order granting the
summary judgment motion of the Postmaster General of the United
States (“Employer”) in this employment discrimination action. We
affirm.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). This court must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials presented
in the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion, and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. * Vester v. Postmaster Gen., No. CA-99-355-1
(M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --