Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Venida Marshall appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Marshall’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing on July 2, 2013. Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01232-PJM (D.Md. filed July 3, 2013; entered July 5, 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.
In addition to challenging the district court’s rejection of her claims on the merits, Marshall also asserts that the district court’s order should be vacated because her counsel was ineffective. However, a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.1986); see Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-86 (Fed.Cir.2012) (collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2856, 186 L.Ed.2d 910 (2013).