Case Name: Syed Z. SHAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Tallat SHAH, wife, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KUKES, LTC; David Lamm, Col; Paul T. Davis, Ltc; Gregory Allen Armstrong, Special Agent; Kevin Benefield, CW2, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Citations: 132 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 05-1124
Parties: Syed Z. SHAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Tallat SHAH, wife, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KUKES, LTC; David Lamm, Col; Paul T. Davis, Ltc; Gregory Allen Armstrong, Special Agent; Kevin Benefield, CW2, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
Syed Z. SHAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Tallat SHAH, wife, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KUKES, LTC; David Lamm, Col; Paul T. Davis, Ltc; Gregory Allen Armstrong, Special Agent; Kevin Benefield, CW2, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1124.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2005.
Decided: May 19, 2005.
Syed Z. Shah, Appellant pro se.
Richard Parker, Ralph Andrew Price, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Syed Z. Shah appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in part, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims, and denying Shah's com plaint of employment discrimination based on race, color, and national origin filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shah v. Kukes, No. CA-04-390-1 (E.D.Va. Dec. 21, 2004). 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