U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Thompson v. High Point Regional

Thompson v. High Point Regional
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 14, 1998

Thompson v. High Point Regional

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1574

SONYA Y. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

HIGH POINT REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-165-2)

Submitted: July 28, 1998 Decided: August 14, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sonya Y. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. John James Doyle, Jr., Jill S. Stricklin, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, Winston-Salem, North Caro- lina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s judgment granting sum- mary judgment to the Appellee and dismissing her action brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination due to her discharge from employ- ment. See Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1228 (4th Cir. 1998). She also failed to show the court abused its discretion in denying her motion for an extension of discovery and for appointment of counsel. See Strag v. Board of Trustees, Craven Community College, 55 F.3d 943, 954 (4th Cir. 1995); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). Finally, the issues raised for the first time on appeal regarding her claim under the Freedom of Information Act and her injuries are not properly before this court. See Karpel, 134 F.3d at 1227. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Thompson v. High Point Reg’l Hosp., No. CA-97-165-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.