Case Name: James E. SLATE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee; James E. Slate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General; Jeffrey F. Perotta, Labor Relations Manager; Roy L. Montague, Postmaster, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-16
Citations: 365 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: Nos. 09-1203, 09-1204
Parties: James E. SLATE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant—Appellee. James E. Slate, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General; Jeffrey F. Perotta, Labor Relations Manager; Roy L. Montague, Postmaster, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
James E. SLATE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant—Appellee. James E. Slate, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General; Jeffrey F. Perotta, Labor Relations Manager; Roy L. Montague, Postmaster, Defendants—Appellees.
Nos. 09-1203, 09-1204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 29, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2010.
James E. Slate, Appellant Pro Se. David Clifford Belt, United States Postal Service, Washington D.C.; Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Shari A. Rose, Depart ment of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Ap-pellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James E. Slate appeals the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in Slate's civil actions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Slate v. Potter, Nos. 1:04-cv-00782-JAB; 1:05-cv-00221-JAB-PTS (M.D.N.C. Sept. 80, 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.