Case Name: Perpetua U. EZEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care of Porter Dialysis-Rosedale, Defendant-Appellee, and Fresenius Medical Care; Fresenius Medical Care Kami Partners, LLC, d/b/a Porter Dialysis, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-06
Citations: 545 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 13-1713
Parties: Perpetua U. EZEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care of Porter Dialysis-Rosedale, Defendant-Appellee, and Fresenius Medical Care; Fresenius Medical Care Kami Partners, LLC, d/b/a Porter Dialysis, Defendants.
Judges: Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 545
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Perpetua U. EZEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care of Porter Dialysis-Rosedale, Defendant-Appellee, and Fresenius Medical Care; Fresenius Medical Care Kami Partners, LLC, d/b/a Porter Dialysis, Defendants.
No. 13-1713.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 30, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 6, 2013.
Perpetua U. Ezeh, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Jennifer Lynn Curry, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Perpetua U. Ezeh appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination case arising from Ezeh's employment with Bio-Medical Applications of Maryland. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. Ezeh v. Bio-Medical Applications of Md., No. 1:11-cv-03441-GLR, 2013 WL 1856351 (D.Md. May 1, 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.