UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CHARLOTTE AHEART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SODEXHO MARRIOTT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, No. 99-1033 and MARRIOTT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-97-3685-PJM) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Eric Steele, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Todd J. Horn, Robin B.

Bowerfind, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Charlotte D. Aheart appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc., on her claim for sexual harassment under Title VII and denying her motion to amend her complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Aheart, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), we find that the district court properly found that Marriott proved both elements of its affirmative defense to vicari- ous liability established by Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellereth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Aheart also appeals from the denial of her motion to amend her complaint to add a claim under the Montgomery County Human Relations Act. In light of the dismissal of Aheart's federal claim, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of her motion to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Therefore, we affirm the order awarding summary judgment to Marriott and denying Aheart's motion to amend her complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED