Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sheree Mills appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Defendant on her Title VII complaint and denying her subsequent post-judgment motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Mills argues that the court erred in denying relief on her disparate treatment claim and in finding that she failed to adequately allege a disparate impact claim.
This court reviews de novo a district court's order granting summary judgment. Moore Bros. v. Brown Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717, 722 (4th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Greensboro Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Greensboro, 64 F.3d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1995).
We have reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. 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.