Ragsdale v. Potter , 235 F. App'x 173 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2276
JULIE RAGSDALE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States
Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 06-2277
ADELE STRISS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United
States Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, Henry F. Floyd,
District Judges. (8:05-cv-00142-RBH; 8:04-cv-22435-HFF)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 16, 2007
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julie Ragsdale, Adele Striss, Appellants Pro Se. Lora M. Taylor,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Adele Striss and Julie
Ragsdale, career employees of the United States Postal Service
(“USPS”), appeal the dismissal of their employment discrimination
actions. Striss and Ragsdale filed separate civil complaints
against the USPS, alleging they were the victims of gender and race
discrimination and retaliation for protected conduct because they
were denied certain details and positions. The USPS filed motions
for summary judgment that stated its alleged reasons for denying
Striss and Ragsdale the details and permanent positions. A
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending
the district court grant the motions for summary judgment. Striss
and Ragsdale noted their objections to the report, and the district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
granted summary judgment to the USPS in each case. Striss and
Ragsdale timely appealed and also have filed motions for jury
trial. We deny the motions for jury trial and affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary
judgment. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162,
1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment may only be granted when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c).
- 3 -
A plaintiff pursuing a claim under Title VII may either
offer direct evidence of discrimination or, using indirect
evidence, he may rely on the burden shifting framework that was
adopted by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Under the McDonnell Douglas standard,
the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case. See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.
248, 253 (1981). When a plaintiff makes a showing sufficient to
support a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If the
employer produces a legitimate reason for the action, the burden
once again shifts to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s
rationale is a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804. We
conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment to
the USPS in Ragsdale’s and Striss’s actions because each failed to
present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the USPS’s
reasons for its employment actions were pretext for discrimination.
We therefore deny the motions for jury trial and affirm
the district court’s judgments. 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
- 4 -