Case Name: Jennifer COATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; Kimberly Washington; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, All, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees, and City of Baltimore, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-23
Citations: 475 F. App'x 853
Docket Number: No. 12-1358
Parties: Jennifer COATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; Kimberly Washington; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, All, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees, and City of Baltimore, Defendant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 853–853

Head Matter:
Jennifer COATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; Kimberly Washington; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, All, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees, and City of Baltimore, Defendant.
No. 12-1358.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2012.
Thomas Joseph Maronick, Jr., The Law Office of Thomas J. Maronick, Jr., LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. George A. Nilson, City Solicitor, Gary Gil-key, Chief Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Coates appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and individual defendants Kimberly Washington and Stephanie Rawl-ings-Blake in this employment discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.2010). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coates v. The Mayor & City Council of Balt., No. 1:10-cv-03419-JKB, 2012 WL 502958 (D.Md. Feb. 14, 2012). 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.