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)
08-1657•Diana K. Livingston v. General Electric Company, also known as Ohmeda Medical/GE Medical
08-1657Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 10, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1657
DIANA K. LIVINGSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, also known as Ohmeda Medical/GE
Medical; DATEX-OHMEDA, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:05-cv-03401-WDQ)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: March 10, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bart Garry, LAW OFFICE OF BART GARRY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Michael Aldana, Joseph O. Wilson, QUARLES & BRADY,
LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Elena D. Marcuss, MCGUIREWOODS LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Diana K. Livingston appeals a district court’s order
granting summary judgment to her employer on her retaliation
claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This
court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment
de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. See Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera,
249 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment may be
granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and [movant] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986).
We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the
joint and supplemental appendices, and the district court’s
opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Livingston v.
Gen. Elec. Co., No. 1:05-cv-03401-WDQ (D. Md. May 7, 2008). 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.