Case Name: Michael W. BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-24
Citations: 283 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 08-1288
Parties: Michael W. BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 999–1000

Head Matter:
Michael W. BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-1288.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2008.
Decided: July 24, 2008.
Michael W. Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Winfield Hahn, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael W. Burton appeals the district court's order entering final judgment against him on his discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) ("Title VII"), and his discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 to 634 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Burton v. Amcor Flexibles, No. 1:06-cv-01289-WDQ (D.Md. Feb. 7, 2008). 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 district court granted Defendant summary judgment on all of Burton's claims except his Title VII retaliatory discharge claim, which was presented to a jury. After the jury returned a verdict in Defendant's favor on the retaliation claim, the district court entered final judgment in Defendant's favor.