
    Wanda D. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-1689.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 31, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 13, 2003.
    Wanda D. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Tara Louise Casey, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Stephan James Boardman, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    
      Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Wanda D. Green appeals the order of the district court awarding summary judgment to the Government on her claim of workplace discrimination filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e 17 (2000). Having considered Green’s claims, we affirm.

As an initial matter, Green claims that her counsel provided ineffective assistance. Civil litigants have no protected right to counsel, and as a consequence, any deficiency on counsel’s part does not provide a basis for appellate relief. See, e.g., Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir.1988); Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.1986). Accordingly, this claim is meritless.

Green also claims that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the Government’s motion for summary judgment. The Government’s motion was filed on December 10, 2002. The district court did not take action on the motion until April 2, 2003. The nearly four month delay in the district court belies Green’s claim, and as such, it shall be denied.

Green’s final claim is that the district court erred in its substantive determination that she failed to carry her evidentiary burden under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Our review of the record discloses no effort by Green to show the Government’s proffered nondiscriminatory basis for not promoting her was pretextual. In the absence of such evidence, and in the absence of any reply to the Government’s motion whatsoever, we conclude that the district court did not err.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.  