Case Name: Gary E. McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACTIV CORPORATION; Howard Sellers; Tim Randall; Jody Rowland; Joseph P. Berley; Linda Milton; Joe Powell; Doug Boynton; Larry Wonoski; Joe Garrison; Ron Clark; Robin Montgomery, Defendants-Appellees, and Tenneco Packaging, Incorporated; Dawn Price; Martin James, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-11
Citations: 30 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 01-2003
Parties: Gary E. McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACTIV CORPORATION; Howard Sellers; Tim Randall; Jody Rowland; Joseph P. Berley; Linda Milton; Joe Powell; Doug Boynton; Larry Wonoski; Joe Garrison; Ron Clark; Robin Montgomery, Defendants-Appellees, and Tenneco Packaging, Incorporated; Dawn Price; Martin James, Defendants.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Gary E. McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACTIV CORPORATION; Howard Sellers; Tim Randall; Jody Rowland; Joseph P. Berley; Linda Milton; Joe Powell; Doug Boynton; Larry Wonoski; Joe Garrison; Ron Clark; Robin Montgomery, Defendants-Appellees, and Tenneco Packaging, Incorporated; Dawn Price; Martin James, Defendants.
No. 01-2003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2002.
Decided March 11, 2002.
J. Dennis Bolt, Bolt Law Firm, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Vinton D. Lide, Vinton D. Lide & Associates, L.L.C., Lexington, South Carolina; Paul H. Derrick, Kristin E. Toussaint, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gary McClain appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McClain v. Pactiv Corp., No. CA-99-3710-1-22 (D.S.C. July 13, 2001). We deny the Appellees' renewed motions to strike the record as moot. 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.