Case Name: Stuart P. ADLER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY; Michael Rao, Ph.D., in his official capacity; Jerome Strauss, III, M.D. in his official and individual capacity; Elizabeth Ripley, M.D. in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 709 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 17-1686
Parties: Stuart P. ADLER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY; Michael Rao, Ph.D., in his official capacity; Jerome Strauss, III, M.D. in his official and individual capacity; Elizabeth Ripley, M.D. in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
Stuart P. ADLER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY; Michael Rao, Ph.D., in his official capacity; Jerome Strauss, III, M.D. in his official and individual capacity; Elizabeth Ripley, M.D. in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1686
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 14, 2017
Decided: January 19, 2018
Tim Schulte, Blackwell N. Shelly, Jr., Richmond, Virginia; Timothy E. Cupp, SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, PC, Harri-sonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Kevin D. Holden, Crystal L. Tyler, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stuart P. Adler, M.D., appeals the district court's order granting Defendants summary judgment on his: (1) age discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2017); (2) claims alleging Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (3) defamation claims. We have reviewed the record and considered the parties' arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Adler v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 259 F.Supp.3d 395 (E.D. Va. 2017). 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