Lynnette Cole v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools , 583 F. App'x 213 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1376
LYNNETTE COLE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. David C. Keesler,
Magistrate Judge. (3:13-cv-00057-DCK)
Submitted: September 15, 2014 Decided: September 24, 2014
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynnette Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Mary Manos,
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG GOVERNMENT CENTER, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lynnette Cole appeals the magistrate judge’s order
granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her
failure to accommodate claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. On appeal, she contends that the magistrate
judge erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendant based
on the evidence. We affirm.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standards as the magistrate judge and
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir.
2012). A court must enter summary judgment “against a party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). “The nonmoving party cannot
create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation
or the building of one inference upon another,” Othentec Ltd. v.
Phelan, 526 F.3d 135, 140 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
2
quotation omitted), and she cannot defeat summary judgment with
merely a scintilla of evidence, Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563
F.3d 78, 82 (4th Cir. 2009). Rather, she must produce evidence
“upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for
the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.”
Othentec Ltd., 526 F.3d at 140 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs,
and we conclude that the magistrate judge did not err in
granting summary judgment to the Defendant.
Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order.
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