Bryant v. Professional Recovery Consultants

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1419 MYRON J. BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY CONSULTANTS, Defendant - Appellee, and STEVE MILLER, Owner; JEFF IVIE, Operations Manager, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-654-5-BO(3), CA-00-273-5-BO(3)) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 16, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David G. Schiller, SCHILLER LAW FIRM, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Caro- lina, for Appellant. Joy R. Webb, BROWNE, FLEBOTTE, WILSON & HORN, P.L.L.C., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Myron J. Bryant appeals the district court’s order granting Professional Recovery Consultants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We affirm. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials sub- mitted in the joint appendices, and fully considered the arguments raised on appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. Professional Recov- ery Consultants, Inc., Nos. CA-99-654-5-BO(3); CA-00-273-5-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2001). 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