
    Mitzi E. DAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jacob LEW, Secretary of Treasury, Department of Treasury; John Koskinen, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service; Kirsten B. Wielobob, Internal Revenue Service, Chief, Office of Appeals; Scott D. Reisher, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Director, Field Operations East; Katherine Heyden, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals Program Manager, Area 4; Lawrence W. Ford, Internal Revenue Service, Supervisory Appeals Officer; Joseph D. Teti, Internal Revenue Service, Supervisory Appeals Officer, Area 2; Brandi A. Joyner, Internal Revenue Service, Appeals, Program Manager, Area 2; Jennifer Pearson, Internal Revenue Service, Agency Wide Shared Services Specialist; Milissa K. Riggs, Human Resources Specialist, Human Capital Office; Leonard L. Getz, National Treasury Employees Union, Local Chapter 90 President, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1464
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 2, 2016
    Decided: November 4, 2016
    Mitzi E. Dailey, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Gregory O’Duden, General Counsel, Julie M. Wilson, Deputy General Counsel, Jessica Horne, Assistant Counsel, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mitzi E. Dailey appeals the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss her civil claims against them, including her race and sex and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Dai-ley’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order granting Appellee Getz’s motion for leave to file a separate brief and affirm the district court’s order. See Dailey v. Lew, No. 1:15-cv-02527-GLR, 2016 WL 1558150 (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2016). 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  