Case Name: Franklin D. HOWLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-26
Citations: 20 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 00-2294
Parties: Franklin D. HOWLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 20
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Franklin D. HOWLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-2294.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2001.
Decided Sept. 26, 2001.
Franklin D. Howlett, pro se. Bernard Anthony Pishko, John Yulee Richardson, Jr., Daniel R. Hagemeister, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Franklin D. Howlett appeals the magistrate judge's order granting summary judgment to his former employer and order denying a motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. CA-00-168-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 15, 2000) (for reasons as stated from the bench); Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. CA-00-168-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2001; entered Apr. 10, 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 magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.