Case Name: Michael SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN OPERATIONS SUPPORT, INCORPORATED; Lockheed Martin Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 230 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 06-2318
Parties: Michael SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN OPERATIONS SUPPORT, INCORPORATED; Lockheed Martin Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Michael SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN OPERATIONS SUPPORT, INCORPORATED; Lockheed Martin Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-2318.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 19, 2007.
Jason H. Ehrenberg, Bailey & Ehrenberg, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John B. Flood, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shelton appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc., on his claim of retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). Sum mary 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); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shelton v. Lockheed Martin Operations, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00141-JCC, 2006 WL 3359613 (E.D.Va. Nov. 20, 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 decision making process.
AFFIRMED.