Case Name: Stephen BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-11
Citations: 89 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 03-2345
Parties: Stephen BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re viewed 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).