Case Name: Kerry Lee WAGAMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-11
Citations: 229 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 06-1686
Parties: Kerry Lee WAGAMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Kerry Lee WAGAMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-1686.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 11, 2007.
Decided: June 11, 2007.
Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, Jeffery C. Taylor, Snider & Associates, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kerry Lee Wagaman appeals the district court's order that granted summary judgment in favor of his former employer in his civil action in which he alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act and retaliation. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix, including the transcript of the summary judgment hearing, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated on the record by the district court. See Wagaman v. England, No. 8:05-cv-02258-PJM (D.Md. May 17, 2006). 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.
Wagaman also challenges the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) motion for a continuance to conduct discovery. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Wagaman's motion.