Case Name: Sara NOSHAFAGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Isiah LEGGETT, County Executive, Montgomery County, Maryland; Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-14
Citations: 538 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 13-1168
Parties: Sara NOSHAFAGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Isiah LEGGETT, County Executive, Montgomery County, Maryland; Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Sara NOSHAFAGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Isiah LEGGETT, County Executive, Montgomery County, Maryland; Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1168.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 14, 2013.
A.P. Pishevar, Pishevar & Associates, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Jo Anna Schmidt, Danielle E. Marone, Schmidt, Dailey & O’Neill, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Sara Noshafagh, an American citizen of Iranian origin who immigrated to the United States in 1997, initiated this action in the District of Maryland in 2011, alleging claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Noshafagh sought to pursue a state law claim for invasion of privacy. On appeal, Noshafagh challenges the court's award of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Noshafagh v. Leggett, No. 8:ll-cv-8038, 2013 WL 93345 (D.Md. Jan. 7, 2013), ECF No. 19.
After a careful review of the various briefs, the appellate record, and the applicable legal principles, we are compelled to conclude that the district court did not err in awarding summary judgment to the defendants. We are therefore satisfied to affirm on the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, as filed on January 7, 2013. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before our court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.