Case Name: Woodrow B. THOMPSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS, LP; Cynthia D. Sadler, Individually and as Employee and Agent for: Nova Pro Risk Solutions, LP; Diane Smith, Individually and as Employee and Agent for: Nova Pro Risk Solutions, LP, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-20
Citations: 398 F. App'x 883
Docket Number: No. 09-2402
Parties: Woodrow B. THOMPSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS, LP; Cynthia D. Sadler, Individually and as Employee and Agent for: Nova Pro Risk Solutions, LP; Diane Smith, Individually and as Employee and Agent for: Nova Pro Risk Solutions, LP, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 883–884

Head Matter:
Woodrow B. THOMPSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS, LP; Cynthia D. Sadler, Individually and as Employee and Agent for: Nova Pro Risk Solutions, LP; Diane Smith, Individually and as Employee and Agent for: Nova Pro Risk Solutions, LP, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-2402.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2010.
Mercedes C. Samborsky, Joppa, Maryland, for Appellant. Alan S. Block, A. David Freeman, Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata, LLP, Washington, D.C.; David A. Rosenberg, Ford & Harrison, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Woodrow B. Thompson, III, appeals the district court's order denying his motion to remand all federal and state employment discrimination claims to state court. We review de novo the district court's denial of the motion to remand. See Moffitt v. Residential Funding, Co., LLC, 604 F.3d 156, 159 (4th Cir.2010). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thompson v. Nova-pro Risk Solutions, LP, No. l:09-cv01755-WDQ, 2009 WL 4884517 (D.Md. Dec. 10, 2009). 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