Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01052/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Penny Pritzker
Appellee
Sheila Venable
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1052

SHEILA VENABLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary of the US Department of Commerce,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(8:13-cv-01867-GLR)

Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: July 30, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, affirmed as modified in part by unpublished 

per curiam opinion.

Sheila Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Jakarra Jenise Jones, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Molissa Heather Farber, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1052 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sheila Venable appeals the district court’s orders denying 

her motion to strike; granting summary judgment to her former 

employer, the U.S. Bureau of the Census (“the Bureau”),1 on her 

claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title 

VII”)2 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”);3

and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions for 

reconsideration.4 We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying 

Venable’s motion to strike and her Rule 59(e) motions for 

reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Venable v. Pritzker, No. 8:13-cv-01867-GLR (D. Md. May 30, 2014; 

Oct. 7, 2014; Oct. 24, 2014; Nov. 18, 2014). We also affirm the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Bureau on all 

Venable’s ADEA claims and her Title VII claims of race 

 1 Penny Pritzker was named as the defendant in her capacity 

as the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Commerce, under 

which the Bureau is situated. See 13 U.S.C. § 2 (2012); 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (2012).

2 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), amended by Pub. L. 

No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130, 2537 (2014).

3 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 (2012).

4 To the extent Venable challenges the district court’s 

denying, on the ground of mootness, her motion for leave to file 

her amended complaint, we conclude her challenge lacks merit.

Appeal: 15-1052 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

discrimination and retaliation with respect to her January 2011 

nonselection. Id.; see Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596, 601 

(2012). However, we modify the court’s disposition with respect 

to all other claims raised in Venable’s complaint to reflect 

that they are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

See Hentosh v. Old Dominion Univ., 767 F.3d 413, 416-17 (4th 

Cir. 2014).

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 PART AND

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART

Appeal: 15-1052 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3