UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1059
WILLIAM B. CUTSHALL, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, U. S.
Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-03-93-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John C. Hunter, BIGGERS & HUNTER, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William B. Cutshall, Jr., a white male, filed suit
against his employer, the Postmaster General of the United States
Postal Service (“Employer”), alleging that Employer violated his
rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
discriminating against him based on his race in its decisions not
to promote him for the positions of Human Resources Specialist and
Supervisor of Distribution Operations. The district court entered
summary judgment against Cutshall and dismissed the action. We
affirm.
We review 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. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). We 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).
In light of this standard, we have carefully reviewed the
formal briefs and materials submitted by the parties and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order granting Employer’s motion for summary judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -