Howell v. Network Solutions, Inc. , 84 F. App'x 301 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1191
HENRY L. HOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; PHILLIP L.
SHARBARO; JEFFREY W. JOHNSON; DAVID GRAVES;
VERISIGN, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-632-A)
Submitted: December 10, 2003 Decided: December 24, 2003
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher E. Brown, BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, P.C., Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Larry R. Seegull, PIPER RUDNICK, L.L.P.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry L. Howell filed an action alleging that he was
discriminated against in his employment in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. Howell appeals from the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to his employer and denying
his discovery motions. We have reviewed the record and do not find
that the district court improperly granted summary judgment, see
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)
(articulating review standard for appeal of summary judgment
motions), or abused its discretion in denying Howell’s discovery
motions. See Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505, 518 n.12 (4th Cir.
1999) (providing general review standard for discovery management);
Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th
Cir. 1996) (giving review standard for ruling on motion to strike
affidavits). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Howell v. Networking Solutions, Inc., No. CA-
02-632-A (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 8, 2003 & entered Jan. 13, 2003)
(granting summary judgment to the employer for the reasons as
stated on the bench). 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