Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

5-2-2007 Hawthorne v. Postmaster Gen Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1664

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Hawthorne v. Postmaster Gen" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1142. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1142

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 06-1664 LUTICIA HAWTHORNE, Appellant v. JOHN E. POTTER, POST MASTER GENERAL Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 03-cv-05465) District Judge: Hon. Freda L. Wolfson Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 19, 2007 Before: McKEE, AMBRO and MICHEL,* Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 2, 2007) OPINION McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Luticia Hawthorne appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster General on her claims of race and disability discrimination. We will

* The Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. affirm.

Inasmuch as the District Court has set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, we find it unnecessary to repeat that history here. See Hawthorne v. Potter, 2006 WL 231679 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2006). Moreover, in its Opinion the District Court has carefully and completely explained why the Postmaster was entitled to summary judgment on Hawthorne’s claims as a matter of law. We need not elaborate as we can add little to the District Court’s thoughtful analysis and discussion. Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.