Case Name: Steven William FERRELL, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX, CO., Defendant-Appellee, and E. James Ferland, President & CEO; Payton S. Baker, President-NOG; Barry Candor, Manager of IT-NOG; Michael Paul, Manager of IT-NOG; Brian Quick, Manager of IT-NOG; Nathaniel X. Marshall, EEOC-NOG, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-23
Citations: 551 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 13-2075
Parties: Steven William FERRELL, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX, CO., Defendant-Appellee, and E. James Ferland, President & CEO; Payton S. Baker, President-NOG; Barry Candor, Manager of IT—NOG; Michael Paul, Manager of IT—NOG; Brian Quick, Manager of IT—NOG; Nathaniel X. Marshall, EEOC—NOG, Defendants.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Steven William FERRELL, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX, CO., Defendant-Appellee, and E. James Ferland, President & CEO; Payton S. Baker, President-NOG; Barry Candor, Manager of IT—NOG; Michael Paul, Manager of IT—NOG; Brian Quick, Manager of IT—NOG; Nathaniel X. Marshall, EEOC—NOG, Defendants.
No. 13-2075.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 21, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2014.
Steven William Ferrell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven David Brown, Joan McKenna, Leclair Ryan, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven William Ferrell, Sr., appeals the district court's order granting Babcock & Wilcox's motion for summary judgment and denying Ferrell's motion to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ferrell v. Babcock & Wilcox, Co., No. 6:12-ev-00048-NKM-RSB, 2018 WL 4468316 (WD.Va. Aug. 19, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.