Opinion
20-1895
07-26-2021
ROSELYN WISE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; SHAKURA ELLISON; JACKIE ROGERS; JONTE COLCLOUGH; ALLISON CORBITT, Defendants-Appellees.
Sarah J. M. Cox, BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A. Davis, Tierney F. Dukes, BOYKIN & DAVIS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 28, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-02161-MGL)
Sarah J. M. Cox, BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A. Davis, Tierney F. Dukes, BOYKIN & DAVIS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KEENAN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Roselyn Wise appeals the district court's order and judgment accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Wise's claim that she was terminated from her position with the South Carolina Department of Revenue ("DOR") in retaliation for using leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 26011-2654. We conclude that the district court properly found that Wise was precluded from relitigating whether she engaged in the conduct that led to her termination. We further conclude that the DOR offered a legitimate reason for terminating Wise's employment and that Wise failed to highlight a genuine dispute of material fact that undermines that reason or demonstrates that the reason was pretextual.
Wise does not challenge the dismissal of her state law claims for defamation and civil conspiracy.
We have considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See Wise v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, No. 3:18-cv-02161-MGL (D.S.C. July 23, 2020). 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