Case Name: Bonny BERKNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Penny PRITZKER, In her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-25
Citations: 561 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 13-1600
Parties: Bonny BERKNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Penny PRITZKER, In her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
Bonny BERKNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Penny PRITZKER, In her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-1600.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2014.
Decided: March 25, 2014.
Gary M. Gilbert, Ari M. Wilkenfeld, The Law Offices of Gary M. Gilbert and Associates PC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Joseph R. Baldwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bonny M. Berkner brought this action against the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, alleging that she was subjected to unlawful harassment, refused reasonable accommodation, discriminated against on the basis of her disabilities, and retaliated against, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties' arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Berkner v. Blank, No. 8:12-cv-01390-DKC, 2013 WL 951562 (D.Md. Mar. 11, 2013). 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.