Case Name: Ramona ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. POTTER, Postmaster General; United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-21
Citations: 308 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 08-2019
Parties: Ramona ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. POTTER, Postmaster General; United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 668–668

Head Matter:
Ramona ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. POTTER, Postmaster General; United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-2019.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 21, 2009.
Ramona Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine DeRoever Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ramona Ortiz appeals the district court's order denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its previous order granting Defendants summary judgment on her employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See Ortiz v. Potter, No. 1:07-cv-01073-RAJ-TAJ (E.D.Va. Aug. 5, 2008). 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.
AFFIRMED.
On appeal, Ortiz attempts to challenge the order of the district court granting Defendants summary judgment on her substantive claims. However, we lack jurisdiction to consider that decision because Ortiz filed her motion for reconsideration more than ten days after the summary judgment order was entered, and thus did not extend the period for appealing that order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Accordingly, only the order denying reconsideration is currently before this court.