Case Name: Adeline B. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-08
Citations: 221 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 06-1280
Parties: Adeline B. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
Adeline B. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1280.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2007.
Decided: March 8, 2007.
Curtis J. Karpel, Richard J. Link, Jr., Karpel & Link, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana W. Arnold, United States Attorney’s Office, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court on January 30, 2006. (JA 1758-1770). Benjamin v. Veneman, No. 8:05-cv-00175-PJM (D.Md. Jan. 31, 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 decision making process.
AFFIRMED.