Court Opinion

ID: 9375094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:03.029495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.873250
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1752      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1752

        SUZANNE BERGER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00064-LKG)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Rignal W. Baldwin, V, BALDWIN SERAINA, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland,
        for Appellant. Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr., Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Peter W.
        Sheehan, Jr., NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Baltimore,
        Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1752      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Suzanne Berger appeals the district court’s order granting Baltimore County,

        Maryland’s, motion to dismiss Berger’s complaint raising multiple discrimination claims,

        brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-

        17; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; and the Maryland

        Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i). We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

        stated by the district court. See Berger v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., No. 1:22-cv-00064-LKG

        (D. Md. June 13, 2022). 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

                                                    2