Shelton v. Copeland, Hyman &

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3150 GLORIA SHELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COPELAND, HYMAN & SHACKMAN/ADVANCED RADIOLOGY; MICHAEL SHERMAN; DOROTHY HUNT; JANICE KNIGHT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-3176-S) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Lee Zimic, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying her action alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shelton v. Copeland, Hyman & Shackman/Advanced Radiology, No. CA-95-3176-S (D. Md. Nov. 17, 1995). To the extent Appellant alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, her claim is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12117 (West 1995). Likewise, any claim Appellant alleged under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 fails because Appellees are not proper defendants under the Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 794(a), (b) (West Supp. 1995). 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