Case ID: f-appx_182/html/0173-01.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

Vincent PITTS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. EDO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, t/a Aera, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 05-1978.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 7, 2006.
    Decided: May 11, 2006.
    Vincent Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher E. Hassell, Bonner, Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Vincent Pitts appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer in his employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the submissions of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Pitts v. EDO Prof'l Servs., Inc., No. CA-05-215-1 (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 2005). 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.