The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1755
WAYNARD WORSHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANN BROWN; MARK A. EDWARDS; ROBERT HALL;
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; MARK
L. EARLEY, Attorney General; HENRICO COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-00-768)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Waynard Worsham, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Butler Bierbower, HUNTON
& WILLIAMS, Washington, D.C.; Phyllis Audrey Errico, Assistant
County Attorney, Joseph Thomas Tokarz, II, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Jennifer Susan Goldstein,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.; Mark E.
Nagle, David J. Ball, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Washington, D.C.; Guy Winston Horsley, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General, Judith Williams Jagdmann, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Waynard Worsham appeals from the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the
employment discrimination action. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West
2001); 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. Worsham v. Brown, No. CA-00-768 (E.D. Va. May 3,
2001). 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