Aortense Lewis v. Maryland Transit

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02424-SAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999785714]. Mailed to: Lewis. [15-2107]

Appeal: 15-2107

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2107

AORTENSE LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:13-cv-02424-SAG)

Submitted:

February 24, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aortense Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Brian E. Frosh, Attorney
General, Thaddeus Byron Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Eric
Scott Hartwig, MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore,
Maryland.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2107

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM
Aortense

Lewis

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

dismissing or granting summary judgment on her claims of race,
age, and disability discrimination and unlawful retaliation, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp.
2015), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to
796l

(2012),

and

the

Age

Discrimination

in

29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (West 2012 & Supp. 2015).

Employment

Act,

On appeal, Lewis

raises a number of arguments challenging the district court’s
disposition of her claims.

Because Lewis did not raise these

arguments — or, in fact, any legal arguments in opposition to
the Maryland Transit Administration’s dispositive motions — in
the

district

court,

her

challenges

to

the

district

court’s

disposition of her claims are not properly before this court. *
See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Our
settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circumstances, we do
not

consider

issues

raised

for

*

the

first

time

on

appeal.”

Insofar as Lewis’ argument that the district court should
have granted her leave to amend her complaint to raise a state
law claim is properly before us, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant such
leave sua sponte. Cf. Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms., Inc., 549
F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th Cir. 2008) (finding no abuse of discretion
in district court “declining to grant a motion [for leave to
amend] that was never properly made,” particularly where
amendment would have been futile).

2

Appeal: 15-2107

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in
informal brief).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3