Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 12-2418
JEFFREY ATKINS,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (4:10-cv-01296-JMC)
Submitted:
Decided:
James Lewis Mann Cromer, James Paul Porter, J. LEWIS CROMER &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey
Atkins
appeals
the
district
courts
order
and
retaliation
under
Title
VII,
and
age
the
Bureau
of
Prisons.
Atkins
suffered
from
his
back.
All
of
Atkins
doctors
imposed
significant
review
the
district
courts
We affirm.
grant
of
summary
presents
disagreement
to
require
Anderson v. Liberty
because
Rehabilitation
of
Act.
his
disability,
Section
504
of
in
the
violation
of
the
Rehabilitation
Act
In order to establish a
otherwise
qualified
for
the
employment
or
benefit
in
due
disability.
to
discrimination
solely
on
the
basis
of
the
court did not err when it held that Atkins was not otherwise
qualified for his position.
discrimination.
Tyndall
v.
National
Educ.
Centers,
Inc.
of
California, 31 F.3d 209, 212 (4th Cir. 1994) (claim under ADA).
A qualified individual with a disability is an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation,
can perform the essential functions of the employment position
that such individual holds or desires.
(2006).
42 U.S.C. 12111(8)
At the time of
assisted by two metal canes with forearm braces and stated that
he
was
afraid
for
his
safety.
Because
the
correctional
to
physically
restrain
and
control
inmates,
and
no
that
Atkins
did
not
make
prima
facie
claim
for
disability discrimination.
Next, Atkins argues that the district court erred by
granting summary judgment on his Title VII racial discrimination
claim.
was
evidence,
adopted
may
by
rely
the
on
the
Supreme
burden-shifting
Court
in
framework
McDonnell
Douglas
plaintiff
must
show
that:
(1)
he
was
member
of
his
protected
class
were
treated
more
favorably.
to
the
nondiscriminatory
defendant
reason
for
to
articulate
the
adverse
legitimate,
employment
action.
legitimate reason for the action, the burden once again shifts
to the plaintiff to show that the employers rationale is a
pretext for discrimination.
Id. at 804-05.
of
circumstantial
credence
evidence
or
by
offering
sufficiently
other
probative
forms
of
of
.
discrimination.
We
conclude
restricted
the
individuals
that
scope
who
of
shared
the
district
potential
Atkins
court
should
comparators
immediate
to
not
only
supervisor
have
those
while
ignoring the fact that the warden of the institution made the
final
Hosp.,
decision
964
to
F.2d
terminate
577,
583
Atkins.
(6th
Cir.
See
1992)
Mitchell
v.
(holding
Toledo
that
to
A plaintiff may
Price v. Thompson,
Id.
Once
Id.
he
filed
termination
was
his
EEO
complaint.
not
temporally
very
Therefore,
close
to
because
his
his
protected
Cir. 2007).
and therefore the district court did not err when it held that
Atkins failed to state a prima facie case for retaliation.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
AFFIRMED