Case Name: Vallie B. DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, and Prince George's County Educator's Association, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-07
Citations: 554 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 13-1976
Parties: Vallie B. DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, and Prince George’s County Educator’s Association, Defendant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Vallie B. DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, and Prince George’s County Educator’s Association, Defendant.
No. 13-1976.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2014.
Vallie B. Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Judah Baror, Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law Firm, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vallie Dean appeals the district court's judgment granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Dean's employment discrimination case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Ac cordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on July 2, 2013. Dean v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01197-PJM (D.Md. July 3, 2013). 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 addition to her substantive claims on appeal, Dean also asserts that the district court's order should be vacated because her counsel was ineffective. However, a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.1986); see Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-86 (Fed.Cir.2012) (collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2856, 186 L.Ed.2d 910 (2013).