Case Name: Diane M. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; Dana Whitt, Lieutenant; Aurora Bullock, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-08
Citations: 276 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 07-1523
Parties: Diane M. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; Dana Whitt, Lieutenant; Aurora Bullock, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Diane M. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; Dana Whitt, Lieutenant; Aurora Bullock, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-1523.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 14, 2008.
Decided: May 8, 2008.
Douglas R. Taylor, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, M. Cecilia Hellrung, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Diane M. Kent appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer and individual supervisors on her claims of retaliation and discrimination brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2000), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). This court reviews a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1483, 170 L.Ed.2d 297 (2008). Summary judgment may be granted only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kent v. Maryland Transp. Auth., No. 1:05-cv-02593-RDB (D.Md. May 1, 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.