Case Name: Henry L. HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; Phillip L. Sharbaro; Jeffrey W. Johnson; David Graves; Verisign, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-24
Citations: 84 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 03-1191
Parties: Henry L. HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; Phillip L. Sharbaro; Jeffrey W. Johnson; David Graves; Verisign, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
Henry L. HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; Phillip L. Sharbaro; Jeffrey W. Johnson; David Graves; Verisign, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-1191.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 2003.
Decided Dec. 24, 2003.
Christopher E. Brown, Brown, Brown & Brown, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Larry R. Seegull, Piper Rudnick, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Henry L. Howell filed an action alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Howell appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to his employer and denying his discovery motions. We have reviewed the record and do not find that the district court improperly granted summary judgment, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (articulating review standard for appeal of summary judgment motions), or abused its discretion in denying Howell's discovery motions. See Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505, 518 n. 12 (4th Cir.1999) (providing general review standard for discovery management); Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir.1996) (giving review standard for ruling on motion to strike affidavits). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Howell v. Networking Solutions, Inc., No. CA-02-632-A (E.D.Va. filed Jan. 8, 2003 & entered Jan. 13, 2003) (granting summary judgment to the employer for the reasons as stated on the bench). 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