Case Name: Brenda ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-10
Citations: 280 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 07-1827
Parties: Brenda ROBERTS, Plaintiff-A ellant PP ’ v‘ GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant — Appellee,
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Brenda ROBERTS, Plaintiff-A ellant PP ’ v‘ GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant — Appellee,
No. 07-1827.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 14, 2008.
Decided: June 10, 2008.
Clarence Connelly, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. J. Michael McGuire, Darryl G. McCallum, Shawe & Rosenthal, , , . . „ LLP' Baitanore’ MarJ,hnd' for Appellee'
MICHAEL, MOTZ, tmd __ . T . TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opimon.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Roberts appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Genesis Healthcare Corporation ("Genesis"), and dismissing her employment discrimination claims, filed pursuant to Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964j as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17 (2000)' and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621-634 (2000). Roberts alleged that, in terminating her employment, Genesis discriminated against her on the basis of her race (African-American) and her age. Roberts also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on Roberts' , . " x- a , claim for compensation for her accrued, , . ,. ». , , , unused vacation time, filed pursuant to Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-505 (LexisNexis 1999).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af firm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., No. 1:06-cv-02305-WDQ, (D.Md. Apr. 23, 2007). 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.
Although Roberts requested that the district court reconsider its decision by filing a timely motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), her appellate brief does not challenge the court's denial of that motion. Accordingly, we have not considered on appeal any issue relating to the denial of Roberts' Rule 59(e) motion. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).