Georgia B. Booker-Hicks v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 2000 re- jecting the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1698
GEORGIA B. BOOKER-HICKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-99-653-3)
Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 10, 2001
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Georgia B. Booker-Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Craig Wood,
James Moss Johnson, Jr., MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Char-
lottesville, Virginia; Fred Lewis Biggs, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE &
BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* We note that the magistrate judge did not have the benefit
of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000) (re-
jecting the “pretext plus” standard). Because we find that Booker-
Hicks failed to provide any evidence of pretext whatsoever, the
Reeves decision does not undercut the outcome reached by the
magistrate judge.
2
PER CURIAM:
Georgia B. Booker-Hicks appeals the magistrate judge’s order
granting Prince Edward County School Board’s motion for summary
judgment and dismissing her claims of racial discrimination and
retaliation filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).
We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on
the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Booker-Hicks v. Prince
Edward Co. Sch. Bd., No. CA-99-653-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2000). * We
deny Booker-Hicks’ motion for appointment of counsel and her motion
requesting that we order the School Board to permit her to conduct
further discovery. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --