Case Name: Francis P. CASTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defense Intelligence Agency; Mark Bogart, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-28
Citations: 279 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 08-1143
Parties: Francis P. CASTO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defense Intelligence Agency; Mark Bogart, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Francis P. CASTO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defense Intelligence Agency; Mark Bogart, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-1143.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: May 28, 2008.
Francis P. Casto, Appellant Pro Se. R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francis P. Casto appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his employment discrimination action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621-634 (2000). This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Livingston v. Wyeth, Inc., 520 F.3d 344, 350 (4th Cir.2008). Summary judgment may only be granted when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Casto v. Dep't of Defense, No. 1:06-cv-00933-GBL-BRP (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2007). We deny Casto's pending motions to expedite and to exclude appendix. 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.