# Riley v. Henderson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 27, 2001 · 14 F. App'x 245

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004917

## Case

- **Full name:** Cisa Y. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 27, 2001
- **Citations:** 14 F. App'x 245
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkins, Williams, Michael
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004917

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1157

CISA Y. RILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United
States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-00-901)

Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cisa Y. Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Cisa Y. Riley appeals the district court’s order dismissing

her claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e

to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the

district court.* See Riley v. Henderson, No. CA-00-901 (E.D. Va.

filed Jan. 4, 2001, entered Jan. 9, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*
To the extent Riley claims the district court’s order of
summary judgment prevented her from completing discovery, because
Riley failed to seek a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), she
cannot raise this claim on appeal. See Evans v. Technologies
Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 961 (4th Cir. 1996). Addi-
tionally, in light of the nature of the district court’s dismissal
of Riley’s claim, her assertion that the affirmative defense recog-
nized by Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998),
is inapplicable in her action is moot.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004917. Public record. Not legal advice.