Case Name: Cardellia ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Informations Systems & Global Solutions, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-01
Citations: 479 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 12-1442
Parties: Cardellia ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Informations Systems & Global Solutions, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 454–454

Head Matter:
Cardellia ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Informations Systems & Global Solutions, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-1442.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 1, 2012.
Cardellia Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Campbell, Stacey Lynn Schwa-ber, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cardellia Anderson appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint alleging wrongful termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.2012) and interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 to 2654 (West 2009 & Supp.2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 8:11-cv-02655-RWT (D.Md. Mar. 19, 2012). We also deny Anderson's motion to appoint counsel, and her motions to reconsider two prior procedural rulings. We deny Anderson's motion to schedule oral argument, dispensing 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.