UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1985
PETER W. KRIEGSMANN,
Plaintiff -Appellant,
v.
FIRSTWORTHY, FWC Partners LP,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:05-cv-02534-DKC)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter W. Kriegsmann, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Stephen Harrison,
Kraig Betner Long, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland;
Rebecca Siegel Singer, SINGER & GREENBERG, PLLC, Dallas, Texas, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Peter W. Kriegsmann appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to FWC Firstworthing (the “Employer”) and
dismissing his employment discrimination suit alleging a violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12300 (2000). On appeal, Kriegsmann alleges error by the
district court in dismissing his claims on the basis that his
carpal tunnel syndrome was not a qualifying disability under the
ADA, that he is otherwise a qualified individual with a disability
based on hearing loss from which he suffers, and he takes issue
with the district court’s description of his job title in its
memorandum opinion.
This court reviews an award 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 when there is no
genuine issue of material fact, given the parties’ respective
burdens of proof at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). In determining
whether the moving party has shown there is no genuine issue of
material fact, a court must assess the factual evidence and all
inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Id. at 255; Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth
Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir. 1996).
- 2 -
Our review of the record reveals no reversible error with
regard to the district court’s determination that Kriegsmann failed
to establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability
such that he proved a prima facie case under the ADA. Moreover,
given the propriety of that determination, any claim of error with
regard to the district court’s description of his job title is
irrelevant.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
granting the Employer’s motion for summary judgment. 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 -