Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 105 F. App'x 526 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1272
MICHAEL A. MASON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
02-3667-RDB)
Submitted: August 11, 2004 Decided: September 7, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Donald R. Livingston, Richard
W. Black, Reed Lock Russell, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Mason appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for Home Depot on his racial discrimination and
retaliation based action. We affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). We must view the
factual evidence, and all justifiable inferences drawn therefrom,
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
We conclude that viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Mason, Home Depot is entitled to summary judgment as
a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of
the district court. See Mason v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. CA-02-
3667-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 11, 2004). 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 -