Case Name: Barry ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HIGH PURITY SYSTEMS, Incorporated; Norman Jones, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-09
Citations: 382 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 09-1849
Parties: Barry ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HIGH PURITY SYSTEMS, Incorporated; Norman Jones, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Barry ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HIGH PURITY SYSTEMS, Incorporated; Norman Jones, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1849.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2010.
Decided: June 9, 2010.
Barry Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Anes-sa Abrams, Saul Ewing, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barry Adams appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss his federal employment discrimination and state tort law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. High Purity Sys., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00354-GBL-JFA (E.D.Va. June 5, 2009; 2009 WL 2391939, July 2, 2009). With regard to Adams' reverse race discrimination claim, we find that Adams failed to allege that he was treated less favorably than others outside his protected class; thus, this claim was insufficiently pled. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir.2004). 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.