OPINION

Annette Greco Litman appeals from the order of the district court denying relief on her claims relating to sexual harassment, genderbased discrimination, and retaliation. With regard to Litman’s claims unrelated to retaliation, we have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm as to those claims on the reasoning of the district court. See Litman v. George Mason Univ., No. CA-97-1755-A (E.D.Va., Jan. 22, 1998; Filed May 7,1998, & Entered May 8, 1998; Filed June 14, 2000, & Entered Jun. 15, 2000; Feb. 26, 2001).

With regard to Litman’s remaining claim of retaliation, after entry of final judgment in the district court, this court decided Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2003), holding that Title VI confers a private right of action for retaliation. Because Title VI and Title IX are to be interpreted in the same manner, see Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 694-96, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the decision in Peters compels the conclusion that Title IX likewise includes a private right of action for retaliation. Accordingly, we vacate that part of the district court’s order dismissing Litman’s retaliation claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We deny Litman’s pending motions to compel supplemental briefing and to file a reply brief. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.