UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2445
HAROLD ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-04-24)
Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 20, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Branch, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BRANCH, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Lori J. Dym, Chief Counsel, Martina M.
Stewart, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Matt M. Dummermuth, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Harold Anderson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
the Rehabilitation Act. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court as Anderson failed to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies for these claims. See
Anderson v. Potter, No. CA-04-24 (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2004); see
also Woodward v. Lehman, 717 F.2d 909, 913-14 (4th Cir. 1983).
Anderson also appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of
counsel. We do not find the district court abused its discretion
in denying the motion, and note that Title VII litigants have no
statutory right to counsel. Jenkins v. Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d
876, 879 (2d Cir. 1983); Young v. K-Mart Corp., 911 F. Supp. 210,
211 (E.D. Va. 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
decisional process.*
AFFIRMED
*
We do not address Anderson’s claim that he needed additional
time for discovery following Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment as this claim is raised for the first time on appeal. See
Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally
waived absent exceptional circumstances).
- 2 -