Rizkalla v. Engineering Mgmt
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LEANNA RIZKALLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ENGINEERING, INCORPORATED, MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00957-GBL)
Submitted: March 22, 2007
Decided: March 27, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter C. Cohen, CHARLSON BREDEHOFT & COHEN, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Seth C. Berenzweig, Jeffrey L. Rhodes, ALBO & OBLON, LLP, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Leanna Rizkalla appeals the district court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, Engineering, Management, & Integration, Inc., on her claim of retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment
is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). the briefs and joint appendix and We have thoroughly reviewed find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rizkalla v. Engineering, Mgmt., & Integration, Inc., No. We dispense with oral
1:05-cv-00957-GBL (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2006).
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decision making process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?