Case ID: f-appx_139/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joan E. JACKSON, Ph.D., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Francis J. HARVEY, Secretary, United States Department of the Army, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-1080.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 30, 2005.
    Decided July 28, 2005.
    Mindy G. Farber, Mary E. Henry, Farber Legal, L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Captain Steven M. Ranieri, United States Army Legal Services Agency, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Joan E. Jackson appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to her employer on her claims of gender discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and due process violation. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

We find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jackson v. Harvey, No. CA-04-1510-8-RWT (D.Md. Nov. 16, 2004). We deny Jackson’s motion to supplement the record. 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