PRISCILLA PELZER v. JANICE SANDERLIN SHARON PETERS PAULA ARMATIS (2016)

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).^* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   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. CrestarMortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that issues not briefed are waived).

PER CURIAM: