Roberts v. Genesis Healthcare Corp. , 280 F. App'x 331 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1827
BRENDA ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:06-cv-02305-WDQ)
Submitted: May 14, 2008 Decided: June 10, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Connelly, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. J.
Michael McGuire, Darryl G. McCallum, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Roberts appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Genesis Healthcare Corporation
(“Genesis”), and dismissing her employment discrimination claims,
filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (2000), and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634(2000).* Roberts alleged that, in terminating her employment,
Genesis discriminated against her on the basis of her race
(African-American) and her age. Roberts also appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment on Roberts’ claim for
compensation for her accrued, unused vacation time, filed pursuant
to Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-505 (LexisNexis 1999).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Roberts v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., No. 1:06-cv-02305-WDQ
(D. Md. Apr. 23, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the
*
Although Roberts requested that the district court reconsider
its decision by filing a timely motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e), her appellate brief does not challenge the court’s denial of
that motion. Accordingly, we have not considered on appeal any
issue relating to the denial of Roberts’ Rule 59(e) motion. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -