Case Name: Priscilla PELZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal Services, Agency, Capitol Metro Area, Defendant-Appellee, and Janice Sanderlin; Sharon Peters; Paula Armatis, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 651 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 16-1160
Parties: Priscilla PELZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal Services, Agency, Capitol Metro Area, Defendant-Appellee, and Janice Sanderlin; Sharon Peters; Paula Armatis, Defendants.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
Priscilla PELZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal Services, Agency, Capitol Metro Area, Defendant-Appellee, and Janice Sanderlin; Sharon Peters; Paula Armatis, Defendants.
No. 16-1160
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: May 31, 2016
Priscilla Pelzer, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Priscilla Pelzer appeals the district court's judgment granting Megan J. Brennan's summary judgment motion on her race discrimination claim, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012) (Title VII). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pelzer v. Brennan, No. 2:15-cv-00290-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2016). 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
The district court previously dismissed Pel-zer's Title VII harassment claim; Title VII race discrimination claim as it pertained to the individual Defendants; state law defamation claim; and her claims brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 to 2654 (2012), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 701 to 7961 (West 2008 & Supp. 2013). Pelzer does not challenge the district court's dispositive holdings regarding these claims in her informal brief and, thus, she has waived appellate review of this order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing the appealing party to present "specific issues and supporting facts and arguments" in an informal brief); see also Canady v. Crestar Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that issues not briefed are waived).