UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1464
MITZI E. DAILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACOB LEW, Secretary of Treasury, Department of Treasury;
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service;
KIRSTEN B. WIELOBOB, Internal Revenue Service, Chief, Office
of Appeals; SCOTT D. REISHER, Internal Revenue Service,
Appeals Director, Field Operations East; KATHERINE HEYDEN,
Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Program Manager, Area 4;
LAWRENCE W. FORD, Internal Revenue Service, Supervisory
Appeals Officer; JOSEPH D. TETI, Internal Revenue Service,
Supervisory Appeals Officer, Area 2; BRANDI A. JOYNER,
Internal Revenue Service, Appeals, Program Manager, Area 2;
JENNIFER PEARSON, Internal Revenue Service, Agency Wide
Shared Services Specialist; MILISSA K. RIGGS, Human
Resources Specialist, Human Capital Office; LEONARD L. GETZ,
National Treasury Employees Union, Local Chapter 90
President,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-02527-GLR)
Submitted: November 2, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitzi E. Dailey, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Gregory O’Duden, General Counsel,
Julie M. Wilson, Deputy General Counsel, Jessica Horne,
Assistant Counsel, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Mitzi E. Dailey appeals the district court’s order granting
Appellees’ motions to dismiss her civil claims against them,
including her race and sex and retaliation claims, brought
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Dailey’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s
order granting Appellee Getz’s motion for leave to file a
separate brief and affirm the district court’s order. See
Dailey v. Lew, No. 1:15-cv-02527-GLR (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2016). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3