Affirmed in part, affirmed as modified in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 un *342 der 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 discrimination and retaliation with respect to her January 2011 non-selection. Id.; see Kloeckner v. Solis, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 596, 601, 184 L.Ed.2d 433 (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.