Case Name: Hugh TITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashton B. CARTER, The Honorable, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-16
Citations: 668 F. App'x 27
Docket Number: No. 16-1036
Parties: Hugh TITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashton B. CARTER, The Honorable, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
Hugh TITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashton B. CARTER, The Honorable, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1036
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 11, 2016
Decided: August 16, 2016
Hugh Tito, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,
PER CURIAM:
Hugh Tito appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing his civil action alleging age discrimination in a promotion decision and in setting his compensation while he held a temporary position. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tito v. Hagel, No. 3:14-cv-00453- REP, 2015 WL 7288120 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2015). 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
Although Defendant may not have complied with Local Rule 7(E), district courts in the Eastern District of Virginia do not view a violation of that rule as fatal to a motion for summary judgment. See Hunt v. Calhoun Cnty, Bank, Inc., 8 F.Supp.3d 720, 731 (E.D. Va. 2014) ("Failure to meet and confer does not automatically result in denial of a motion. Rather, sanctions for failure to meet and confer lie within a district court's discretion and its inherent power to control its docket." (citations omitted)).