UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1149
JOAN H. BRAITSCH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMC CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
THOMAS AARON; MICHAEL GRILLI; FRANK KEANEY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-94-1693-A)
Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: March 20, 2000
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Whitney Adams, McLean, Virginia, Theodore B. Olson, Thomas G.
Hungar, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Richard L. Swick, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant EMC Corporation, the prevailing party in a civil
rights action brought by Appellee Joan H. Braitsch, appeals the
district court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees. This is the
second time this issue has come before us. In EMC’s previous ap-
peal, we noted an ambiguity in the record concerning the district
court’s rationale for denying fees, and we therefore remanded for
further proceedings. See Braitsch v. EMC Corp., No. 97-1467, 1997
WL 787125 (4th Cir. Dec. 24, 1997) (unpublished).
The district court has now clarified its reasons for denying
fees. We have reviewed the court’s opinion and find no abuse of
discretion. See DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 510 (4th Cir.
1999) (noting that whether to grant or deny fees is a matter for
the district court’s discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the dis-
trict court’s order declining to award attorney’s fees. Further-
more, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process, we grant Braitsch’s motion for summary
affirmance and deny EMC’s request for oral argument.
AFFIRMED
2