Case Name: Richard M. STUMBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYNCORP PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as DynCorp Aerospace Operations, Incorporated; Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, Incorporated; Dyncorp Aerospace Operations (U.K.), Limited, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-05
Citations: 17 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 01-1196
Parties: Richard M. STUMBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYNCORP PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as DynCorp Aerospace Operations, Incorporated; Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, Incorporated; Dyn-corp Aerospace Operations (U.K.), Limited, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Richard M. STUMBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYNCORP PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as DynCorp Aerospace Operations, Incorporated; Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, Incorporated; Dyn-corp Aerospace Operations (U.K.), Limited, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2001.
Decided Sept. 5, 2001.
Thomas Moore Lawson, Ann K. Cren-shaw, Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., Winchester, VA, for appellant. Michelle L. Bodley, Steven W. Ray, Edward Lee Isler, Ray & Isler, P.C., Vienna, VA, for appellees.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Richard M. Stumbo appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Stumbo's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp.2000). We affirm.
The only question on appeal is whether Stumbo forecast sufficient evidence that Defendants regarded him as disabled to survive a motion for summary judgment. Applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999), and Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516, 119 S.Ct. 2133, 144 L.Ed.2d 484 (1999), we conclude that he did not. Stumbo has demonstrated only that Defendants considered him unfit for one particular job. See Sutton, 527 U.S. at 492, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (stating that to make out an ADA claim, a person must be regarded as "precluded from a broad range of jobs"); Murphy, 527 U.S. at 523, 119 S.Ct. 2133 (holding that "to be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job").
Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in the Defendants' favor. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately represented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.