The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-1765•George F. Leeper v. Duke Energy Corporation
02-1765Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 13, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1765
GEORGE F. LEEPER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CA-98-17-3-V)
Submitted: December 30, 2002 Decided: January 13, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geraldine Sumter, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, WALLAS, ADKINS,
GRESHAM & SUMTER, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Stricklin Cox, John James Doyle, Jr., CONSTANGY, BROOKS &
SMITH, L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
George F. Leeper appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant summary
judgment in the employer’s favor on Leeper’s claim that he was
subjected to a racially hostile work environment. We have reviewed
the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible
error. We agree with the district court that Leeper failed to
forecast evidence sufficient to impute liability to the employer.
See Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183-84 (4th Cir.
2001) (discussing prima facie case); Mikels v. City of Durham, 183
F.3d 323, 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999) (providing that “employers are
liable only for their own negligence in failing, after actual or
constructive knowledge, to take prompt and adequate action to stop
[harassment by fellow employees].”). Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Leeper v. Duke Energy Corp.,
No. CA-98-17-3-V (W.D.N.C. filed June 18, 2002; entered June 24,
2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.