Hughes v. Harrisonburg Hotel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1033
JAMES W. HUGHES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HARRISONBURG HOTEL ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, t/a
Sheraton Harrisonburg,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-95-35-H)
Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James W. Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Jay Litten, Stephanie
Rader Sipe, LITTEN & SIPE, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in this action under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West
1985 & Supp. 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no reversible error. Even assuming that
Appellant filed a sufficient complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, see 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), he failed to pro-
vide direct evidence of discrimination on the part of the Defen-
dant. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 512 (4th
Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3460 (U.S.,
Dec. 12, 1994) (No. 94-719); Gagne v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co.,
881 F.2d 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting Chappell v. GTE Prods.
Corp., 803 F.2d 261, 268 n.2 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919(1987)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dis-
pense 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