Case Name: Sheila C. SIMMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chuck HAGEL, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defendant-Appellee, and Deborah A. Wolfe, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation Richmond; Julia A. Brandon, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation Richmond, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 641 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 15-2292
Parties: Sheila C. SIMMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chuck HAGEL, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defendant-Appellee, and Deborah A. Wolfe, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation Richmond; Julia A. Brandon, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation Richmond, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Sheila C. SIMMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chuck HAGEL, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defendant-Appellee, and Deborah A. Wolfe, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation Richmond; Julia A. Brandon, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation Richmond, Defendants.
No. 15-2292.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2016.
Decided: March 21, 2016.
Sheila C. Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney,' Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sheila C. Simms appeals the district court's order denying relief on her complaint raising claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simms v. Hagel, No. 3:14-cv-60433-REP, 2015 WL 5020894 (E.D.Va. Aug. 20, 2015). 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,