Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01356/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01356-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1356

MARY M. HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND JUDICIARY; CIRCUIT COURT FOR 

BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Official Capacity; LEE ROBINSON, Manager 

for Human Employment Relations; CHERYL A. LOTZ, Manager for 

Courtroom Clerks; DANIEL SMITH, Supervisor of Courtroom 

Clerks Division,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-02579-JFM)

Submitted: September 30, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1356 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Mary M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney 

General, Michele J. McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1356 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Mary M. Harris appeals the district court’s orders granting 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Harris’ 

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error.∗ Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Maryland, No. 

1:13-cv-02579-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2016). We deny Appellees’ 

motion for leave to file a surreply. 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

 ∗ In her informal brief, Harris fails to challenge the 

district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration and, 

thus, forfeits review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) 

(“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the 

informal brief.”); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th 

Cir. 2014) (noting importance of informal brief and Rule 34(b)). 

Appeal: 16-1356 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3