Priscilla Pelzer v. Megan Brennan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00290-RAJ-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837060]. Mailed to: Priscilla Pelzer. [16-1160]

Appeal: 16-1160

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1160

PRISCILLA PELZER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Services, Agency. Capitol Metro Area,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JANICE SANDERLIN; SHARON PETERS; PAULA ARMATIS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00290-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Priscilla Pelzer, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 16-1160

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1160

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Priscilla

Pelzer

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment

granting Megan J. Brennan’s summary judgment motion on her race
discrimination claim, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2012) (Title VII). *
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

See Pelzer v. Brennan, No. 2:15-cv-

00290-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2015).

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

*

The district court previously dismissed Pelzer’s Title VII
harassment claim; Title VII race discrimination claim as it
pertained to the individual Defendants; state law defamation
claim; and her claims brought pursuant to the Family and Medical
Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654 (2012), and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to
796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2013).
Pelzer does not challenge the
district court’s dispositive holdings regarding these claims in
her informal brief and, thus, she has waived appellate review of
this order.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing the appealing
party to present “specific issues and supporting facts and
arguments” in an informal brief); see also Canady v. Crestar
Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that
issues not briefed are waived).

3