Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Diana K. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, also known as Ohmeda Medical/GE Medical; Datex-Ohmeda, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (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-w-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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LIVINGSTON v. GENERAL ELEC. CO
(Mar 10, 2009)