Shelton v. Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc. , 230 F. App'x 276 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2318
MICHAEL SHELTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN OPERATIONS SUPPORT,
INCORPORATED; LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00141-JCC)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason H. Ehrenberg, BAILEY & EHRENBERG, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. John B. Flood, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shelton appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Lockheed
Martin Operations Support, Inc., on his claim of retaliation
brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v.
Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.
1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Shelton v. Lockheed Martin
Operations, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00141-JCC (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2006).
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 decision making process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -