The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-1977•Cristina Gillaspie v. CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of the Navy
22-1977Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1977
CRISTINA GILLASPIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00453-DCN)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Allan R. Holmes, Timothy O. Lewis, Rebecca J. Wolfe, GIBBS & HOLMES,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney,
William H. Jordan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Cristina Gillaspie appeals the district court’s orders (1) accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation to grant the Secretary of the Navy summary judgment on
Gillaspie’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, as applied through § 501
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l; and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; and (2) denying Gillaspie’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Gillaspie v. Del Toro, No. 2:19-cv-
00453-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2022; Aug. 25, 2022). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.