Catherine Gierbolini v. Science Applications Int'l , 548 F. App'x 925 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2284
CATHERINE GIERBOLINI,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01459-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Catherine Gierbolini, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Lori
Hunt Turner, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Catherine Gierbolini appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment for Science Applications
International Corporation (“Science Applications”) as to
Gierbolini’s defamation claim. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. * Contrary to Gierbolini’s assertions
on appeal, Science Applications’ alleged refusal to respond to
requests for employment verification cannot form the basis of an
actionable defamation claim. See, e.g., Tharpe v. Saunders, 737
S.E.2d 890, 892 (Va. 2013) (“The elements of defamation are
(1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with (3) the
requisite intent.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
Hyland v. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., 670 S.E.2d 746, 750 (Va.
2009) (“Generally, under our common law, a private individual
asserting a claim of defamation first must show that a defendant
has published a false factual statement that concerns and harms
the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s reputation.”). Accordingly, we
affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court. Gierbolini v. Sci. Applications Int’l Corp., No.
1:12-cv-01459-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 8, 2013 & entered
*
Many of the arguments addressed in Gierbolini’s informal
brief were not fairly raised in the district court. We decline
to address these issues in the first instance. See United
States v. Edwards, 666 F.3d 877, 887 (4th Cir. 2011) (declining
to address arguments raised for first time on appeal).
2
Oct. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3