Case Name: Leanna RIZKALLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENGINEERING, MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 06-1696
Parties: Leanna RIZKALLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENGINEERING, MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Leanna RIZKALLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENGINEERING, MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1696.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2007.
Decided: March 27, 2007.
Peter C. Cohen, Charlson Bredehoft & Cohen, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appel lant. Seth C. Berenzweig, Jeffrey L. Rhodes, Albo & Obion, LLP, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Leanna Rizkalla appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, Engineering, Management, & Integration, Inc., on her claim of retaliation 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. Rizkalla v. Engineering, Mgmt., & Integration, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-00957-GBL, 2006 WL 4459434 (E.D.Va. Aug. 29, 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.