Hindman v. Greenville Hospital

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2784

POLLY HINDMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM; GREENVILLE MEMO- RIAL HOSPITAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Amicus Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2942-6-21AK)

Submitted: December 9, 1997 Decided: December 23, 1997 Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Polly Hindman, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Allen Bright, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Dori Kay Bernstein, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on her complaint filed pursuant

to the ADA,1 Title VII,2 and state law. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Since we find that the district court properly granted summary

judgment as to Appellant's ADA and Title VII claims on traditional summary judgment principles, we decline to address whether Appel-

lant was judicially estopped from asserting she was a qualified

individual under the ADA. In all other respects, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hindman v. Greenville Hosp. Sys.,

947 F. Supp. 215 (D.S.C. 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-

sional process.

AFFIRMED

1 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994). 2 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (1994).