UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2031
WILLIAM MCKELVY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:09-cv-000821-JRS)
Submitted: April 4, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne M. Scriven, SCRIVEN LAW OFFICES, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
for Appellant. Rodney A. Satterwhite, Jeffrey S. Shapiro,
Latoya C. Asia, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William McKelvy appeals the district court's order
granting Capital One Services, LLC’s motion for summary judgment
on his claims of discriminatory removal of supervisory duties
and termination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West
2003 & Supp. 2010), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 &
Supp. 2010); discriminatory denial of promotion, in violation of
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a (2006); and state law claims for breach
of contract, wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. McKelvy argues that the district court
erred when it: (i) failed to afford McKelvy eleven days to
oppose Capital One’s summary judgment motion; (ii) denied
McKelvy’s motion to compel; (iii) determined that McKelvy failed
to rebut the at-will employment presumption; (iv) granted
summary judgment on McKelvy’s retaliation claim based on Capital
One’s alleged refusal to pay severance benefits if he did not
withdraw his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge; and
(v) improperly relied on hearsay evidence to find that Capital
One established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
actions. We have reviewed the record and have found no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
final order. McKelvy v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 3:09-cv-
3
00821-JRS (E.D. Va. filed August 20, 2010; entered August 25,
2010). 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
4