Case Name: Kendall R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Verizon Mid-Atlantic, Incorporated; Verizon Communications, Incorporated; Reed Smith LLP, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-03
Citations: 539 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 13-1531
Parties: Kendall R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Verizon Mid-Atlantic, Incorporated; Verizon Communications, Incorporated; Reed Smith LLP, Defendants.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Kendall R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Verizon Mid-Atlantic, Incorporated; Verizon Communications, Incorporated; Reed Smith LLP, Defendants.
No. 13-1531.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2013.
Kendall R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Tillman J. Breckenridge, Reed Smith, LLP, Washington, DC, Helenanne Connolly, Reed Smith, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia, Betty S.W. Graumlich, Reed Smith, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kendall R. Smith appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., Smith's former employer, in Smith's action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Inc., No. 8:11-cv-01301-PJM, 2013 WL 1316391 (D.Md. Mar. 28, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.