UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1472
RICKEY L. HAMILTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-97-2274-1-06BC)
Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 8, 2000
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Miley, North Augusta, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Gardner G. Courson, Laura H. Huggett, Vincent J. Miraglia, MCGUIRE,
WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rickey L. Hamilton appeals the district court’s order granting
Westinghouse Savannah River Company’s motion for summary judgment
in Hamilton’s action filed under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or
amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). On appeal,
Hamilton claims that the district court erred in concluding that he
failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement by not including his
allegations of discriminatory termination in his charge with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that even assuming Hamil-
ton satisfied the exhaustion requirement, he failed to show he was
“disabled” within the meaning of the ADA, and that he failed to
sustain viable failure to accomodate and retaliation claims.
We have reviewed the briefs, the materials submitted in the
joint appendix, and the district court’s thorough opinion and
order, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Hamilton v. Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., No. CA-97-2274-1-06BC (D.S.C. Mar. 9 & July 19,
1999). (J.A. at 38-55, 89). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2