UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1700
MARIELA VALDERRAMA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(1:05-cv-00747-BEL)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mariela Valderrama, Appellant Pro Se. Rafael E. Morell, OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mariela Valderrama appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her
employment discrimination action brought under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17 (2000) and state law. Valderrama also appeals the
district court’s orders denying her plea for leave to renew or to
reopen motion for summary judgment and her motion to reconsider the
motion to file a sur-reply, in which she sought reconsideration of
the court’s order granting summary judgment. This court reviews a
district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v.
E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Summary judgment may only be granted when “there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). With
this standard in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Valderrama v. Honeywell Tech. Solutions, Inc.,
No. 1:05-cv-00747-BEL (D. Md. filed Feb. 14, 2007 & entered
Feb. 15, 2007; Apr. 5, 2007 & entered Apr. 6, 2007). We deny
Valderrama’s pending motion for mandamus relief. 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 -