UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2464
RONALD A. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED; KATHY PROFIT;
MARYLIN MARTIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-03-324-1-MJG)
Submitted: July 23, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald A. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Wayne Steinbach,
EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald A. Edwards appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Edwards’ claims under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et
seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213 (2000). Edwards also appeals the dismissal of his
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Because the district court considered materials outside
the parties’ pleadings, we construe its action in granting
Appellees’ motions as granting summary judgment. See Fed. R. App.
P. 12(b). In reviewing an appeal from a district court’s grant of
summary judgment, this court conducts a review de novo, assessing
whether there is a genuine question of material fact, drawing all
factual contentions and justifiable inferences to favor the
nonmovant. See, e.g., Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club, 180
F.3d 598, 606 (4th Cir. 1999).
We agree with the district court that Edwards’ ADEA
claims are procedurally barred. See Dennis v. County of Fairfax,
55 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that claims that exceed
scope of EEOC charge are procedurally barred). We also agree that
Edwards failed to present a prima facie claim of discrimination
under the ADA. See Haulbrook v. Michelin N. America, 252 F.3d 696,
702 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating elements that comprise a prima facie
case of discrimination under the ADA). Finally, we agree that
- 2 -
Edwards’ allegations of intentional infliction of emotional
distress failed to rise to the level of an actionable claim. See
Harris v. Jones, 380 A.2d 611, 614 (Md. 1977) (stating Maryland
state law elements claimant must establish to make out a claim for
the intentional infliction of emotional distress). Because we find
Edwards’ claims either procedurally barred or without merit, we do
not reach the question of individual liability under the ADA or the
ADEA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
Edwards’ claims. 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
- 3 -