No. 06-2318.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 19, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00141-JCC).
Jason H. Ehrenberg, Bailey Ehrenberg, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John B. Flood, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak Stewart, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shelton appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc., on his claim of retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). Summary
Page 277
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). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court Shelton v. Lockheed Martin Operations, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00141-JCC, 2006 WL 3359613 (E.D.Va. Nov. 20, 2006). 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 decision making process.
AFFIRMED.