UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1316
STEVE R. HOUSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MONTGOMERY COLLEGE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-99-2058-AW)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve R. Houston, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Wellington Thompson,
Jr., County Attorney, Sharon Veronica Burrell, Joanne Robertson,
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Peter Stephen
Saucier, Darrell Robert VanDeusen, KOLLMAN & SHEEHAN, Baltimore,
Maryland; Joan I. Gordon, General Counsel, MONTGOMERY COLLEGE,
Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steve R. Houston appeals the district court's order granting
Montgomery College’s motion for costs associated with defending
against Houston’s employment discrimination action. We have re-
viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
abuse of discretion. See Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d
442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating standard of review). Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* See
Houston v. Montgomery College, No. CA-99-2058-AW (D. Md. Feb. 17,
2000). 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
*
Houston also challenges in his informal brief the order
granting summary judgment to Montgomery College. Although an in-
formal brief may be construed as a notice of appeal, see Smith v.
Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), the brief was filed beyond the 30-
day appeal period and, therefore, is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1).
2