Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0405-01.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

Stephen BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-2345.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 25, 2004.
    Decided March 11, 2004.
    Stephen Brooks, Appellant pro se. Richard Lee Rainey, Amy L. Cox Gruendel, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Charles Archibald Edwards, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Richard H. Sauer, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Stephen Brooks appeals the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in which he alleged his employer failed to accommodate his disability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Brooks v. Microsoft, No. CA-02-257-3-H (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2003). 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 
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).