Case Name: Michel RIDGELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elaine CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-06
Citations: 256 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 07-1051
Parties: Michel RIDGELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elaine CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
Michel RIDGELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elaine CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-1051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2007.
Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Lauren A. Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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.