Maria S. Kiraly v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 2250

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2171
MARIA S. KIRALY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2250,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; PRINCE GEORGE’S
COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-02845-DKC)
Submitted: August 29, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlene Sukari Hardnett, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Appellant. Mark J. Murphy, Lauren P. McDermott, MOONEY, GREEN,
SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Maria S. Kiraly appeals from the district court’s
order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss, dismissing her
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and denying her
request to file an amended complaint. We have reviewed the
briefs on appeal and the record, and we find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court.* (J.A. at 73-82). 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
* In addition, we note that, on appeal, Kiraly untimely
raises a retaliation claim pursuant to the Labor-Management
Recording and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) which was not raised
below. However, even if we considered the LMRDA claim on the
merits, this statute is not applicable to state employees. See
29 U.S.C. § 402(e) (2012); Smith v. Office and Professional
Employees Int’l Union, 821 F.2d 355, 355-56 (6th Cir. 1987).

-- 3 of 3 --