Case Name: Waynard WORSHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Ann BROWN; Mark A. Edwards; Robert Hall; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Henrico County School Board, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-25
Citations: 21 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 01-1755
Parties: Waynard WORSHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Ann BROWN; Mark A. Edwards; Robert Hall; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Henrico County School Board, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
Waynard WORSHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Ann BROWN; Mark A. Edwards; Robert Hall; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Henrico County School Board, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 01-1755.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2001.
Decided Oct. 25, 2001.
Waynard Worsham, pro se.
Mark Butler Bierbower, Hunton & Williams, Phyllis Audrey Errico, Assistant County Attorney, Joseph Thomas Tokarz, II, County Attorney’S Office, Mary Hannah Lauck, Office of the United States Attorney, Jennifer Susan Goldstein, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Mark E. Nagle, David J. Ball, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Washington, DC; Guy Winston Horsley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Judith Williams Jagdmann, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Waynard Worsham appeals from the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the employment discrimination action. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 621-634 (West 2001); 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Worsham v. Brown, No. CA-00-768 (E.D.Va. May 3, 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.