Case Name: Barbara GILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZEIDERS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-12
Citations: 30 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 01-2293
Parties: Barbara GILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZEIDERS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Barbara GILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZEIDERS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-2293.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 2002.
Decided March 12, 2002.
Henry E. Howell, III, Doummar & Howell, L.L.P., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. William M. Furr, Willeox & Savage, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Barbara Gilman filed a complaint alleging Zeiders Enterprises, Inc. violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 621-684 (West 1999 & Supp.2001) when it failed to hire her for a domestic violence prevention specialist position. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing and granted summary judgment in favor of Zeiders, finding no discrimination. Gilman appeals the magistrate judge's order.
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the magistrate judge's bench ruling. The court properly found that Gilman failed to show the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Appellee offered for failing to hire her were pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 137-39, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge as stated in its bench ruling. Gilman v. Zeiders Enters, Inc., No. CA-01-134-2 (E.D.Va. Oct. 2, 2001). 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.
The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994).