Justine Conway v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1199
JUSTINE CONWAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00502-JRR)
Submitted: April 28, 2025 Decided: May 19, 2025
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Justine Conway, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Justine Conway appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to
dismiss Conway’s complaint alleging she was retaliated against in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. We have reviewed the
record in conjunction with the arguments that Conway raises on appeal and find no
reversible error. The district court properly dismissed Conway’s retaliation claims
postdating her original 2018 charge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
because Conway did not provide evidence that she had exhausted those claims. Conway’s
remaining claims did not sufficiently allege causation because the asserted retaliation
occurred over two years after her alleged protected activity, and Conway did not allege any
other evidence of retaliatory animus in the intervening period. See generally Kelly v. Town
of Abingdon, Virginia, 90 F.4th 158, 170 (4th Cir. 2024) (“If the two events are attenuated,
courts may look to the intervening period for other evidence of retaliatory animus.”).
Accordingly, although we grant Conway’s motion to file a supplemental informal
brief, we affirm the district court’s order. Conway v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-cv-00502-JRR (D.
Md. Aug. 10, 2023). 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

-- 2 of 2 --