
    Lester MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1309
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 19, 2017
    Decided: June 26, 2017
    Lester Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Elise Song Kurlander, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lester Moody appeals the district court’s order granting the Baltimore City Department of Social Services summary judgment on his claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1688 (2012); and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Moody v. Baltimore City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 1:16-cv-03706-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2017); see also Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 406 (4th Cir. 2013) (“An employee seeking redress for discrimination cannot file suit until [ ]he has exhausted the administrative process.”); Resource Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Inc. Co., 407 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon ... mere allegations or denials ..., but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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  