Case Name: Cisa Y. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-27
Citations: 14 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 01-1157
Parties: Cisa Y. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 245–245

Head Matter:
Cisa Y. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-1157.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2001.
Decided July 27, 2001.
Cisa Y. Riley, pro se.
Leslie Bonner McClendon, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cisa Y. Riley appeals the district court's order dismissing her claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Riley v. Henderson, No. CA-00-901 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 4, 2001, entered Jan. 9, 2001). 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.
To the extent Riley claims the district court's order of summary judgment prevented her from completing discovery, because Riley failed to seek a continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), she cannot raise this claim on appeal. See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 961 (4th Cir. 1996). Additionally, in light of the nature of the district court's dismissal of Riley's claim, her assertion that the affirmative defense recognized by Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), is inapplicable in her action is moot.