UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1356

MARY M. HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND JUDICIARY; CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Official Capacity; LEE ROBINSON, Manager for Human Employment Relations; CHERYL A. LOTZ, Manager for Courtroom Clerks; DANIEL SMITH, Supervisor of Courtroom Clerks Division,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-02579-JFM)

Submitted: September 30, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Michele J. McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Mary M. Harris appeals the district court’s orders granting

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Harris’

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. ∗ Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Maryland, No.

1:13-cv-02579-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2016). We deny Appellees’

motion for leave to file a surreply. 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 her informal brief, Harris fails to challenge the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration and, thus, forfeits review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of informal brief and Rule 34(b)).

3