Case Name: Shirley F. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-08
Citations: 122 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 04-1823
Parties: Shirley F. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
Shirley F. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-1823.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2005.
Decided: March 8, 2005.
Thomas F. Hennessy, III, Thomas F. Hennessy, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Virginia Van Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shirley F. Daniels appeals a district court's order granting summary judgment to her employer on her retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Daniels v. Rumsfeld, No. CA-03-60-4 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2004). 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