Case ID: f-appx_20/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Myron J. BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY CONSULTANTS, Defendant-Appellee, and Steve Miller, Owner; Jeff Ivie, Operations Manager, Defendants.
    No. 01-1419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 28, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 16, 2001.
    David G. Schiller, Schiller Law Firm, L.L.P., Raleigh, NC, for appellant. Joy R. Webb, Browne, Flebotte, Wilson & Horn, P.L.L.C., Durham, NC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Myron J. Bryant appeals the district court’s order granting Professional Recovery Consultants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We affirm.

This court reviews 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 material facts in dispute 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, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials submitted in the joint appendices, and fully considered the arguments raised on appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc., Nos. CA-99-654-5-BO(3); CA-00-273-5-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 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.