Ridgely v. Chao , 256 F. App'x 653 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1051
MICHEL RIDGELY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Labor,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC)
Submitted: October 29, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Stephen Domenic Scavuzzo, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Lauren A. Wetzler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michel Ridgely appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendant summary judgment on Ridgely’s employment
discrimination and retaliation claims. Ridgely first challenges
the transfer of his civil action from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. However, we do not
have jurisdiction to review this issue because Ridgely failed to
challenge the change of venue in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir.
1991). Accordingly, we dismiss Ridgely’s appeal as to that issue.
Ridgely next contends the district court improperly
concluded that he failed to exhaust his retaliation claim. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ridgely v.
Chao, No. 1:06-cv-00343-GBL-TC (E.D. Va., Dec. 29, 2006). 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
- 2 -