Case Name: Carl Keith KISTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERMATILE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, d/b/a Joe Joe Rainero Tile Company, Incorporated, d/b/a Joe Rainero, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-22
Citations: 121 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 04-1792
Parties: Carl Keith KISTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERMATILE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, d/b/a Joe Joe Rainero Tile Company, Incorporated, d/b/a Joe Rainero, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
Carl Keith KISTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERMATILE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, d/b/a Joe Joe Rainero Tile Company, Incorporated, d/b/a Joe Rainero, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-1792.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2005.
Hilary K Johnson, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.
Christen W. Burkholder, Christen W. Burkholder, P.C., Bristol, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carl Keith Kistner appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his Title VII action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Kistner v. Permatile Concrete Prods., No. CA-03-74-3 (W.D.Va. May 26, 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
While we note the district court's citation to the "pretext plus" standard that has been overruled in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146-49, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), we find no harmful error in this case as the evidence was insufficient to establish pretext even under Reeves, and because the issue was not raised on appeal and is therefore waived. See Canady v. Crestar Mortgage Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir.1997).