Case Name: Richard E. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee, and W.T. McDowell, Chief, Fire Marshal; L.H. Godfrey, Assistant Fire Marshal; R.A. Cook; Kenny V. Crosby, Director of Human Resources, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-20
Citations: 81 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 03-2016
Parties: Richard E. FOSTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant—Appellee, and W.T. McDowell, Chief, Fire Marshal; L.H. Godfrey, Assistant Fire Marshal; R.A. Cook; Kenny V. Crosby, Director of Human Resources, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Richard E. FOSTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant—Appellee, and W.T. McDowell, Chief, Fire Marshal; L.H. Godfrey, Assistant Fire Marshal; R.A. Cook; Kenny V. Crosby, Director of Human Resources, Defendants.
No. 03-2016.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2003.
Decided Nov. 20, 2003.
Richard E. Foster, pro se.
Deborah Casey Brown, Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.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).
Richard E. Foster appeals the district court's order accepting the report and rec ommendation of the magistrate judge and awarding summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing his complaint filed 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Foster v. City of Greenville Fire Dep't, No. CA-01-4824-625AK (D.S.C. Aug. 7, 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