Ajisefinni v. Clifton Larson Allen, LLP

Full title: PAULA B. AJISEFINNI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN, LLP…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jul 24, 2023

No. 23-1100 (4th Cir. Jul. 24, 2023)

Opinion

23-1100

07-24-2023

PAULA B. AJISEFINNI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN, LLP, Defendant-Appellee.

Paula B. Ajisefinni, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Francis Evelius, WRIGHT, CONSTABLE &SKEEN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: July 20, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:19-cv-03284-DLB)

Paula B. Ajisefinni, Appellant Pro Se.

Paul Francis Evelius, WRIGHT, CONSTABLE &SKEEN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paula B. Ajisefinni appeals the district court's orders (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Clifton Larson Allen, LLP, on Ajisefinni's claims alleging race discrimination, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; race and age discrimination, in violation of the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606(a)(1)(i); and breach of contract; and (2) denying Ajisefinni's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. Ajisefinni v. Clifton Larson Allen, LLP, No. 8:19-cv-03284-DLB (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2022; Jan. 4, 2023). We note that Ajisefinni's claim that she received no notice of the motion for summary judgment is belied by the record. Specifically, defense counsel certified that the summary judgment motion was mailed to Ajisefinni at the correct home address, and subsequently emailed to Ajisefinni at her known email address, and there was no indication either was undeliverable. In addition, the district court docket confirms that the district court clerk sent a notice to Ajisefinni via certified mail on June 1, 2022, informing Ajisefinni that she had 28 days to respond to the motion. 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