UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1080
JOAN E. JACKSON, Ph.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FRANCIS J. HARVEY, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04-
1510-8-RWT)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mindy G. Farber, Mary E. Henry, FARBER LEGAL, L.L.C., Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney,
Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland; Captain Steven M. Ranieri, UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL
SERVICES AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joan E. Jackson appeals the district court’s order
awarding summary judgment to her employer on her claims of gender
discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment,
retaliation, and due process violation. This court reviews a grant
of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is
appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
We find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Jackson v. Harvey, No. CA-04-
1510-8-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2004). We deny Jackson’s motion to
supplement the record. 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
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -