
    Diana K. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, also known as Ohmeda Medical/GE Medical; Datex-Ohmeda, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-1657.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 19, 2009.
    Decided: March 10, 2009.
    Bart Garry, Law Office of Bart Garry, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Aldana, Joseph O. Wilson, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Elena D. Mareuss, McGuirewoods LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Diana K. Livingston appeals a district court’s order granting summary judgment to her employer on her retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir.2001). Summary judgment may be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [movant] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint and supplemental appendices, and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Livingston v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 1:05-cv-03401-WDQ (D.Md. May 7, 2008). 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.  