Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01051/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1051

MICHEL RIDGELY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of

Labor,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC)

Submitted: October 29, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck

Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Lauren A. Wetzler, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1051 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/06/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michel Ridgely appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendant summary judgment on Ridgely’s employment

discrimination and retaliation claims. Ridgely first challenges

the transfer of his civil action from the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. However, we do not

have jurisdiction to review this issue because Ridgely failed to

challenge the change of venue in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir.

1991). Accordingly, we dismiss Ridgely’s appeal as to that issue.

Ridgely next contends the district court improperly

concluded that he failed to exhaust his retaliation claim. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ridgely v.

Chao, No. 1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC (E.D. Va., Dec. 29, 2006). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 07-1051 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/06/2007 Pg: 2 of 2