UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1280
ADELINE B. BENJAMIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States
Department of Agriculture,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:05-cv-00175-PJM)
Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 8, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis J. Karpel, Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Ariana W. Arnold, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile
work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary
judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues
of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv.
Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed
the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court
on January 30, 2006. (JA 1758-1770). Benjamin v. Veneman, No.
8:05-cv-00175-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2006). 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 decision making process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -