Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wehunt v. Toyota Motor Sales, 96-2640 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2640 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2640 KATHRYN M. WEHUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-7-H) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 96-2640



KATHRYN M. WEHUNT,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INCORPORATED,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   Alexander Harvey II, Senior District
Judge. (CA-96-7-H)


Submitted:   February 13, 1997        Decided:     February 25, 1997


Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kathryn M. Wehunt, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Jeffrey Magid, Mark
Christopher Kopec, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals the district court's adverse order granting

summary judgment in her action filed pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12117 (West 1995). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination. See Ennis v. National Ass'n of Bus. & Educ.

Radio, 
53 F.3d 55
, 58 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, we find that the

district court's assessment against Appellant of the reasonable

cost of the preparation of the employer's successful summary judg-

ment motion was not an abuse of the court's discretion. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (1994); Oak Hall Cap and Gown Co.

v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 
899 F.2d 291
, 296 (4th Cir.

1990). 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




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer