Case Name: James Clinton DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Leonard Lowery, Honda of South Carolina; Jhon Blach, Honda of South Carolina; Brad Smith, Honda of South Carolina, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-02
Citations: 178 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 06-1185
Parties: James Clinton DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Leonard Lowery, Honda of South Carolina; Jhon Blach, Honda of South Carolina; Brad Smith, Honda of South Carolina, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
James Clinton DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Leonard Lowery, Honda of South Carolina; Jhon Blach, Honda of South Carolina; Brad Smith, Honda of South Carolina, Defendants.
No. 06-1185.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2006.
Decided: May 2, 2006.
James Clinton Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Pedrick McWilliams, Regina Hollins Lewis, Joan Wash Hartley, Nexsen Pruet, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Clinton Davis appeals the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 to 12213 (2000) and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. Honda of SC, No. 4:03-cv-03546-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 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