Case Name: Theodore Joseph BOWLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAROLINA CARGO, INCORPORATED; Jody Crowder; Jim Crowder, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-14
Citations: 100 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 03-1848
Parties: Theodore Joseph BOWLES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CAROLINA CARGO, INCORPORATED; Jody Crowder; Jim Crowder, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 889–890

Head Matter:
Theodore Joseph BOWLES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CAROLINA CARGO, INCORPORATED; Jody Crowder; Jim Crowder, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-1848.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2004.
Decided: June 14, 2004.
Howard Wayne Floyd, Wayne Floyd Law Office, P.A., West Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Andrew F. Lindemann, David L. Morrison, Matthew B. Rosbrugh, Davidson, Morrison and Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Joseph Bowles appeals the district court's order granting judgment to his former employer as a matter of law following a bench trial on his claim that he was a victim of retaliation discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). On appeal, Bowles' sole issue is that he was entitled to a jury trial on his retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (2000). We find this claim to be without merit. See Kramer v. Banc of Am. Sec., 355 F.3d 961, 964-66 (7th Cir.) (holding that because an ADA retaliation claimant is limited to equitable relief, he is not entitled to a jury trial), petition for cert. filed, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2876, — L.Ed.2d-, 72 U.S.L.W. 3674 (Apr. 16, 2004) (No. 03-14). Accordingly, we affirm. 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