Case Name: Moe THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter H. PARHAM, General Counsel, University of South Carolina; University of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-17
Citations: 322 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 07-2095
Parties: Moe THOMPSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Walter H. PARHAM, General Counsel, University of South Carolina; University of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 350–350

Head Matter:
Moe THOMPSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Walter H. PARHAM, General Counsel, University of South Carolina; University of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-2095.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2009.
Decided: April 17, 2009.
Percy Squire, Percy Squire Co., LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Andrew F. Lindemann, William H., Davidson, II, Davidson & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Moe Thompson appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment against him in- his civil action alleging a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court from the bench on October 5, 2007, as noted in the court's summary judgment order filed on October 10, 2007. See Thompson v. Parham, No. 3:06-cv-02064-CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 10, 2007). 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.