Sheila Venable v. PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary of the US Department of Commerce

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1052
SHEILA VENABLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary of the US Department of Commerce,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-01867-GLR)
Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: July 30, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, affirmed as modified in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Sheila Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Jakarra Jenise Jones,
Assistant United States Attorney, Molissa Heather Farber, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sheila Venable appeals the district court’s orders denying
her motion to strike; granting summary judgment to her former
employer, the U.S. Bureau of the Census (“the Bureau”),1 on her
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”)2 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”);3
and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions for
reconsideration.4 We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying
Venable’s motion to strike and her Rule 59(e) motions for
reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court.
Venable v. Pritzker, No. 8:13-cv-01867-GLR (D. Md. May 30, 2014;
Oct. 7, 2014; Oct. 24, 2014; Nov. 18, 2014). We also affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Bureau on all
Venable’s ADEA claims and her Title VII claims of race
1 Penny Pritzker was named as the defendant in her capacity
as the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Commerce, under
which the Bureau is situated. See 13 U.S.C. § 2 (2012); 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (2012).
2 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), amended by Pub. L.
No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130, 2537 (2014).
3 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 (2012).
4 To the extent Venable challenges the district court’s
denying, on the ground of mootness, her motion for leave to file
her amended complaint, we conclude her challenge lacks merit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discrimination and retaliation with respect to her January 2011
nonselection. Id.; see Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596, 601
(2012). However, we modify the court’s disposition with respect
to all other claims raised in Venable’s complaint to reflect
that they are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Hentosh v. Old Dominion Univ., 767 F.3d 413, 416-17 (4th
Cir. 2014).
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 PART AND
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --