UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1226
ADRIENNE WALKER-PITTMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MARYLAND TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00202-CCB)
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Morris, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian
E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Jennifer L. Katz, Eric
S. Hartwig, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrienne Walker-Pittman appeals the district court’s order
granting the Maryland Department of Transportation’s and the
Maryland Transportation Administration’s motion to dismiss
Walker-Pittman’s retaliation and race and gender discrimination
claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2008 &
Supp. 2016); retaliation and age discrimination claims, brought
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016);
retaliation and disability discrimination claims, brought
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213 (2012), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2016);
and unlawful employment practices claims, brought pursuant to
the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State
Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. See Walker-Pittman v. Md. Dep’t of
Transp., No. 1:14-cv-00202-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2015). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3