Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-22-2003 Davis v. D'Innocenzo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-1631 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Davis v. D'Innocenzo" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 864. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/864 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 02-1631 __________ KIMBERLY M. DAVIS, Appellant v. DONETTA M. D’INNOCENZO; JOHN R. MCCARTY; GARY E. CROWELL; DONALD E. GIBAS; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Department of the General Services; STEVEN GARNER; GREGORY GREEN __________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-01428 District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell __________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 10, 2003 __________ Before: SCIRICA, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: January 22, 2003) OPINION BARRY, Circuit Judge Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the factual underpinnings of this case, we note simply that appellant Kimberly M. Davis filed a complaint on August 9, 1999 against her employer, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services ("DGS"), and several individual supervisors, alleging discrimination on the basis of race. Appellant raised her non-selection for a position in the Department, as well as various disciplinary suspensions she says she received on the basis of her race and one or more suspensions in retaliation for her having engaged in protected activities. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000 (e), et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, and 1367. Appellate jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants substantially for the reasons set forth in the lengthy and comprehensive opinion of the District Court. We agree with the District Court that, among other reasons, appellant’s allegations are too conclusory and generalized to engender a material issue of fact as to whether or not discriminatory animus and not legitimate rationales undergirded defendant’s employment decisions. TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Kindly file the foregoing Opinion. /s/ Maryanne Trump Barry Circuit Judge