Case Name: Eugene W. SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee; Eugene W. Santos, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-16
Citations: 446 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: Nos. 10-2151, 11-1488
Parties: Eugene W. SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee. Eugene W. Santos, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Eugene W. SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee. Eugene W. Santos, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 10-2151, 11-1488.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 14, 2011.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2011.
Christopher R. Pudelski, Law Offices of Christopher R. Pudelski, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Eugene Santos appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy on Santos's employment discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006), and granting the Secretary's motion to supplement the record. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not commit reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. See Santos v. Winter, No. 2:08-cv-03994-DCN, 2010 WL 3788045 (D.S.C. Sept. 21, 2010) & (May 5, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.