Case Name: Robert J. RICCIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; the City of Salisbury; Alan Webster, Salisbury Police Department, Defendants-Appellees, and Sandy Willey, Administrative Commander Salisbury Police Department, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-13
Citations: 102 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 03-1814
Parties: Robert J. RICCIO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; the City of Salisbury; Alan Webster, Salisbury Police Department, Defendants—Appellees, and Sandy Willey, Administrative Commander Salisbury Police Department, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
Robert J. RICCIO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; the City of Salisbury; Alan Webster, Salisbury Police Department, Defendants—Appellees, and Sandy Willey, Administrative Commander Salisbury Police Department, Defendant.
No. 03-1814.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2004.
Decided: July 13, 2004.
Michael Marshall, Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
John F. Breads, Jr., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert J. Riccio appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in Riccio's action alleging wrongful termination in violation of Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101—12213 (2000). To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the job in question; and (3) he was discharged because of his disability. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 467-70 (4th Cir.1999). We agree with the district court that Riccio failed to establish that he was "otherwise qualified" for the position from which he was terminated. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (defining "qualified individual with a disability"); Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 281-82 (4th Cir.1995) (applying two-prong analysis for determining whether a person is "an otherwise qualified individual"). 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