Case Name: Beverly F. WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, and Anderson County Department of Social Services; Kenneth R. Pryor; Joel Parnell; Charlene Colegrove; J. Daniel Whitehurst, Jr.; Linda Wood, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-18
Citations: 18 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 01-1398
Parties: Beverly F. WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, and Anderson County Department of Social Services; Kenneth R. Pryor; Joel Parnell; Charlene Colegrove; J. Daniel Whitehurst, Jr.; Linda Wood, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Beverly F. WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, and Anderson County Department of Social Services; Kenneth R. Pryor; Joel Parnell; Charlene Colegrove; J. Daniel Whitehurst, Jr.; Linda Wood, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 24, 2001.
Decided Sept. 18, 2001.
Beverly F. Wideman, pro se. Thomas Allen Bright, Vance Earle Drawdy, Hayns-worth, Baldwin, Johnson & Greaves, L.L.C., Greenville, SC, for appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Beverly F. Wideman appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendant on her claim of employment discrimination and retaliation based on race. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wideman v. South Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. CA-99-746-8 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2001). We grant Wide-man's motion to waive 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.