Evans v. Williamsburg Tech, No. 07-1394 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1394 GAIL EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL COLLEGE; CLIFTON ELLIOTT, a/k/a Rusty Elliott, individually and in his official capacity as agent and Dean of Instruction of Williamsburg Technical College; RONALD HAMPTON, in his official position as acting President of Williamsburg Technical College, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cv-03939-TLW) Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Bell, THE BELL LAW FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Karla McLawhorn Hawkins, BOYKIN, DAVIS & HAWKINS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gail Evans appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and her state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This court reviews a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. 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). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the materials before us on appeal and find no reversible error. district Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the court. See Evans v. Williamsburg 4:03-cv-03939-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2007). Tech. Coll., No. 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 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
