Case Name: James H. CHANCEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN TRADE SCHOOLS, INCORPORATED; Matt Daly; EFC Trade, Incorporated, IV, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-11
Citations: 442 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 10-2440
Parties: James H. CHANCEY, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN TRADE SCHOOLS, INCORPORATED; Matt Daly; EFC Trade, Incorporated, IV, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
James H. CHANCEY, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN TRADE SCHOOLS, INCORPORATED; Matt Daly; EFC Trade, Incorporated, IV, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-2440.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.
James H. Chancey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Hermann Strong, Venable, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James H. Chancey, Jr., appeals the district court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We affirm.
With respect to Chancey's claim of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and his claim of retaliatory discharge, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006), we review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir.) petition for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3686 (May 31, 2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chancey v. N. Am. Trade Sch. Inc., No. 1: 10-cv-00032-WDQ (D.Md. Nov. 17, 2010).
We deny as moot appellee's motion to strike filed in this court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu ment would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.