Rizkalla v. Engineering Mgmt, No. 06-1696 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1696 LEANNA RIZKALLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ENGINEERING, INCORPORATED, MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00957-GBL) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 27, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter C. Cohen, CHARLSON BREDEHOFT & COHEN, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Seth C. Berenzweig, Jeffrey L. Rhodes, ALBO & OBLON, LLP, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leanna Rizkalla appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, Engineering, Management, & Integration, Inc., on her claim of retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the find briefs and joint appendix and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rizkalla v. Engineering, Mgmt., & Integration, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-00957-GBL (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2006). 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 decision making process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.