-IDD SMITH v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, No. 1:2011cv00724 - Document 72 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 9/5/12. (dper)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TB EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division '! i E SEP - 5 2012 CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA SHER1 ELLIS SMITH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 1:1 l-cv-724 v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Secretary of the Army's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated in open Court and those that follow, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Secretary of the Army's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 1. Undisputed Facts' Sheri Ellis-Smith ("Plaintiff) is an African-American female and a former employee of the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"). Plaintiff worked as a contract specialist with the Europe District of the USACE in Wiesbaden, Germany and Afghanistan from July 2005 to January 2011. Plaintiff brings four claims against Defendant in her filed Complaint: (1) retaliation, (2) hostile work environment and disparate treatment based on retaliation, (3) discrimination based on gender, and (4) discrimination based on race. Local Civ. Rule 56(B): In determining a motion for summary judgment, the Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its listing of material facts arc admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion. "Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment." (quoting Forsyth v. Ban; 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994)); Republic Tobacco, L.P. v. N. All. Trading. Co., 254 F. Supp. 2d 985, 993-94 (N.D. 111. 2002) ("Conclusory arguments unsupported by the record are insufficient to preclude summary judgment, and we are not obliged to 'scour the record' looking for factual disputes").
]]>
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.
