Case Name: Rickey MEDLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Nima, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-11
Citations: 86 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 03-1699
Parties: Rickey MEDLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Nima, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 665–665

Head Matter:
Rickey MEDLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Nima, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-1699.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2003.
Decided Feb. 11, 2004.
Dawn V. Martin, Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Rickey Medlock appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in his employment discrimination action and denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred by ruling on the motion for summary judgment prior to discovery, failing to consider his claims of disparate impact, and granting summary judgment on his retaliation claim. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Medlock v. Rumsfeld, No. CA-02-1093DKC (D. Md. Dec. 31, 2002; Apr. 4, 2003). 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