Case Name: Mary M. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Maryland Judiciary; Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Lawrence J. Hogan, Official Capacity; Lee Robinson, Manager for Human Employment Relations; Cheryl A. Lotz, Manager for Courtroom Clerks; Daniel Smith, Supervisor of Courtroom Clerks Division, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-01
Citations: 670 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 16-1356
Parties: Mary M. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Maryland Judiciary; Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Lawrence J. Hogan, Official Capacity; Lee Robinson, Manager for Human Employment Relations; Cheryl A. Lotz, Manager for Courtroom Clerks; Daniel Smith, Supervisor of Courtroom Clerks Division, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Mary M. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Maryland Judiciary; Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Lawrence J. Hogan, Official Capacity; Lee Robinson, Manager for Human Employment Relations; Cheryl A. Lotz, Manager for Courtroom Clerks; Daniel Smith, Supervisor of Courtroom Clerks Division, Defendants.
No. 16-1356
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 30, 2016
Decided: November 1, 2016
Mary M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Michele J. McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mary M. Harris appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Harris' motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Maryland, No. 1:13-cv-02579-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2016). We deny Appellees' motion for leave to file a surreply. 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
In her informal brief, Harris fails to challenge the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration and, thus, forfeits review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.''); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of informal brief and Rule 34(b)).