
    Catherine GIERBOLINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-2284.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 19, 2013.
    Decided: Dec. 23, 2013.
    Catherine Gierbolini, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Lori Hunt Turner, Is-ler, Dare, Ray, Radcliffe & Connolly, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Gierbolini appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Science Applications International Corporation (“Science Applications”) as to Gierbolini’s defamation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Contrary to Gierbolini’s assertions on appeal, Science Applications’ alleged refusal to respond to requests for employment verification cannot form the basis of an actionable defamation claim. See, e.g., Tharpe v. Saunders, 285 Va. 476, 737 S.E.2d 890, 892 (2013) (“The elements of defamation are (1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with (3) the requisite intent.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hyland v. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., 277 Va. 40, 670 S.E.2d 746, 750 (2009) (“Generally, under our common law, a private individual asserting a claim of defamation first must show that a defendant has published a false factual statement that concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s reputation.”). Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Gierbolini v. Sci. Applications Int’l Corp., No. 1:12-cv-01459-LMB-IDD, 2013 WL 5575869 (E.D.Va. filed Oct. 8, 2013 & entered Oct. 9, 2013). 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. 
      
       Many of the arguments addressed in Gierboli-ni’s informal brief were not fairly raised in the district court. We decline to address these issues in the first instance. See United States v. Edwards, 666 F.3d 877, 887 (4th Cir.2011) (declining to address arguments raised for first time on appeal).
     