Case Name: Thomas Lamont SAXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-24
Citations: 11 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 00-2241
Parties: Thomas Lamont SAXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
Thomas Lamont SAXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-2241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.
Decided April 24, 2001.
Robert L. Bell, C. Vaughn Adams, Bell & Adams, Washington, DC, for appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Lamont Saxon appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in his employment discrimination action. Regarding Saxon's claims on appeal that the district court erred by denying his claims of discrimination for the 1996 and 1998 positions and that an employee wrongfully interfered with the administrative processing of his informal discrimination complaint, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Saxon v. Shalala, No. CA-00-896PJM (D.Md. filed Aug. 23, 2000; entered Aug. 25, 2000).
Saxon's remaining claim, that the district court erred by failing to hold a hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment, also fails. Cray Communications Inc. v. Novatel Computer Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir.1994) (holding that district court does not need to hold a hearing on a summary judgment motion). 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.