Catherine Gierbolini v. Science Applications Int'l, No. 13-2284 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2284 CATHERINE GIERBOLINI, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01459-LMB-IDD) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catherine Gierbolini, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Lori Hunt Turner, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Catherine order granting International Gierbolini summary appeals judgment Corporation for ( Science Gierbolini s defamation claim. find no reversible error. * the district Science court s Applications Applications ) as to We have reviewed the record and Contrary to Gierbolini s assertions on appeal, Science Applications alleged refusal to respond to requests for employment verification cannot form the basis of an actionable defamation claim. See, e.g., Tharpe v. Saunders, 737 S.E.2d ( The 890, 892 (1) publication requisite (Va. of 2013) (2) intent. an elements actionable (internal of defamation statement quotation with marks (3) are the omitted)); Hyland v. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., 670 S.E.2d 746, 750 (Va. 2009) ( Generally, under our common law, a private individual asserting a claim of defamation first must show that a defendant has published a false factual statement that concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff s reputation. ). affirm substantially court. Gierbolini for v. the Sci. reasons stated Applications Accordingly, we by Int l the district Corp., No. 1:12-cv-01459-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 8, 2013 & entered * Many of the arguments addressed in Gierbolini s informal brief were not fairly raised in the district court. We decline to address these issues in the first instance. See United States v. Edwards, 666 F.3d 877, 887 (4th Cir. 2011) (declining to address arguments raised for first time on appeal). 2 Oct. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3