Cobb v. Potter

Fourth Circuit

Cobb v. Potter

233 F. App'x 331

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 2007

Docket06-2013

StatusUnpublished

This text of 233 F. App'x 331 (Cobb v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cobb v. Potter, 233 F. App'x 331 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Cobb appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Postal Service, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. Cobb v. Potter, Nos. 1:04-cv-00128; 1:05-cv-00300, 2006 WL 2457812 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 22, 2006; entered Aug. 23, 2006). * 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 decision making process.

AFFIRMED.

*

We note that, in addressing Cobb’s hostile work environment claim, the district court erroneously relied on Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, 444 F.3d 255, 269 (4th Cir.2006), when the opinion in that case had been vacated by a grant of rehearing en banc. See 4th Cir. R. 35(c)(granting of rehearing en banc vacates previous panel judgment and opinion). This error does not change the correctness of the district court’s decision, however, because the district court cited Jennings for legal principles that were set forth in Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Cobb appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Postal Service, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. Cobb v. Potter, Nos. 1:04-cv-00128; 1:05-cv-00300, 2006 WL 2457812 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 22, 2006; entered Aug. 23, 2006). * 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 decision making process.

AFFIRMED.

*

We note that, in addressing Cobb’s hostile work environment claim, the district court erroneously relied on Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, 444 F.3d 255, 269 (4th Cir.2006), when the opinion in that case had been vacated by a grant of rehearing en banc. See 4th Cir. R. 35(c)(granting of rehearing en banc vacates previous panel judgment and opinion). This error does not change the correctness of the district court’s decision, however, because the district court cited Jennings for legal principles that were set forth in Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 F. App'x 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-potter-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack