Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01160/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01160-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1160

PRISCILLA PELZER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal 

Services, Agency. Capitol Metro Area,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

JANICE SANDERLIN; SHARON PETERS; PAULA ARMATIS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:15-cv-00290-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Priscilla Pelzer, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 16-1160 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1160 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Priscilla Pelzer appeals the district court’s judgment 

granting Megan J. Brennan’s summary judgment motion on her race 

discrimination claim, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 

(2012) (Title VII).* We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Pelzer v. Brennan, No. 2:15-cv00290-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2015). 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

 * The district court previously dismissed Pelzer’s Title VII 

harassment claim; Title VII race discrimination claim as it 

pertained to the individual Defendants; state law defamation 

claim; and her claims brought pursuant to the Family and Medical 

Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654 (2012), and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 

796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2013). Pelzer does not challenge the 

district court’s dispositive holdings regarding these claims in 

her informal brief and, thus, she has waived appellate review of 

this order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing the appealing 

party to present “specific issues and supporting facts and 

arguments” in an informal brief); see also Canady v. Crestar 

Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that 

issues not briefed are waived).

Appeal: 16-1160 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 3