Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Marston v. AT&T Corporation, 03-1539 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1539 Visitors: 50
Filed: Feb. 13, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1539 LISA P. MARSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AT&T CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-516-3) Submitted: October 10, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay J. Levit, LEVI
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-1539



LISA P. MARSTON,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


AT&T CORPORATION, a New York corporation,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-516-3)


Submitted:   October 10, 2003          Decided:     February 13, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jay J. Levit, LEVIT, MANN, HALLIGAN & WARREN, P.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Ronda Brown Esaw, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP,
McLean, Virginia; Michele L. Settle, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Lisa P. Marston appeals from the district court’s grant

of summary judgment to AT&T in Marston’s employment discrimination

suit.   We have reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no

reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the

reasoning of the district court.        Marston v. AT&T Corp, No.

CA-02-516-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2003).    In addition, we hold that

any claim that Marston was subjected to a retaliatory hostile work

environment was waived by her failure to clearly raise the claim in

district court.   See Muth v. United States, 
1 F.3d 246
, 250 (4th

Cir. 1993).   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