Case Name: Warren R. FOLLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; Kevin MaCnaughton, in his individual and official capacities; Michael Harwood, in his individual and official capacities; Carole Acquesta, in her individual and official capacities; Barbara Carroll, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-19
Citations: 370 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 09-2132
Parties: Warren R. FOLLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; Kevin MaCnaughton, in his individual and official capacities; Michael Harwood, in his individual and official capacities; Carole Acquesta, in her individual and official capacities; Barbara Carroll, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
Warren R. FOLLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; Kevin MaCnaughton, in his individual and official capacities; Michael Harwood, in his individual and official capacities; Carole Acquesta, in her individual and official capacities; Barbara Carroll, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-2132.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 16, 2010.
Decided: March 19, 2010.
Warren R. Folium, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Potter, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Warren R. Folium appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Follum v. North Carolina State Univ., No. 5:08-cv-00526-FL, 2009 WL 2869927 (E.D.N.C. Sept 2, 2009). 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.