UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1523
DIANE M. KENT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DANA WHITT, Lieutenant;
AURORA BULLOCK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cv-02593-RDB)
Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 8, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas R. Taylor, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F.
Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, M. Cecilia Hellrung,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Diane M. Kent appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of her former employer and individual
supervisors on her claims of retaliation and discrimination brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2000), and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2000). This court reviews a district court’s order
granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501
F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 2008 WL
112249 (U.S. Sept. 19, 2007) (No. 05-1570). Summary judgment may
be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to 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. Kent v.
Maryland Transp. Auth., No. 1:05-cv-02593-RDB (D. Md. May 1, 2007).
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 -