UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2030
BERNARD C. DUSÉ, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BARNES & NOBLE, INCORPORATED; JASON SANDERS;
SUSAN SKIRBOLL; EVA LEVINE; MARSHA BROGDON;
COURTNEY MONKHOUSE; ROBERT CRABTREE; ROBERT
KESSLER; STEPHEN RIGGIO; KEITH BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:05-cv-01508-GBL-LO)
Submitted: December 6, 2006 Decided: January 8, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard C. Dusé, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Prywes, Anna C.
Ursano, BRYAN & CAVE, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee Barnes
& Noble, Inc.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard C. Dusé, Jr. appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Barnes & Noble, Inc. (“Barnes
& Noble”) on his employment discrimination and retaliation claims
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000).
Dusé alleged that Barnes & Noble unlawfully discriminated against
him on the basis of his race, age, and gender, and that he was
retaliated against when he complained of the alleged
discrimination. Dusé also appeals the district court’s order
granting Barnes & Noble’s motion to strike witnesses not disclosed
by Dusé in discovery, claiming, in part, that the testimony of
those witnesses would have bolstered his opposition to Barnes &
Noble’s motion for summary judgment.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Dusé v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-01508-GBL-LO
(E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2006). 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
- 2 -