Case ID: f-appx_51/html/0451-01.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

Kenneth RINGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman Y. MINETA, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), in his official capacity and his officer, agents and successors, Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    No. 02-1708.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 20, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 3, 2002.
    Kenneth Ringo, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Ringo appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee denying his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2002). We affirm.

We review an award 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, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The evidence is viewed 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).

With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, stated from the bench following a full hearing. 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.