Aortense Lewis v. Maryland Transit , 635 F. App'x 136 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 Employment Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (West 2012 & Supp. 2015). 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
(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. 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
3