Case Name: Sydney S. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jacob J. LEW, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant-Appellee, and Department of Treasury, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-19
Citations: 612 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 15-1136
Parties: Sydney S. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jacob J. LEW, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant-Appellee, and Department of Treasury, Defendant.
Judges: Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 688–688

Head Matter:
Sydney S. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jacob J. LEW, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant-Appellee, and Department of Treasury, Defendant.
No. 15-1136.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 19, 2015.
Sydney S. Hart, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sydney S. Hart appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, on Hart's claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), amended by Pub.L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130, 2537, 2537 (2014). This Court reviews de novo whether a district court erred in granting summary judgment. Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir.2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hart v. Lew, No. 1:12-cv-03482-ELH (D. Md. filed Feb. 6, 2015 & entered Feb. 9, 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.