Case Name: Craig MISTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORTHINGTON ARMSTRONG VENTURE (Wave), Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-14
Citations: 697 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 17-1186
Parties: Craig MISTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORTHINGTON ARMSTRONG VENTURE (Wave), Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
Craig MISTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORTHINGTON ARMSTRONG VENTURE (Wave), Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1186
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 30, 2017
Decided: September 14, 2017
Arinderjit Dhali, DHALI PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Theresa M. Connolly, CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Craig Mistier appeals the district court's order granting Worthington Armstrong Venture's summary judgment motion on his claims, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 to 2654 (2012) (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 to 12213 (2012), and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606 to 20-609 (West 2014) (MFEPA). We have reviewed the record and considered the parties' arguments and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mistler v. Worthington Armstrong Venture, No. 1:15-cv-03458-JFM, 2017 WL 491635 (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2017); see also United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that this court may affirm a district court's order "on any grounds apparent from the record" (internal quotation marks omitted)), pet. for cert. filed, No. 17-5559 (Aug. 7, 2017); Yashenko v. Harrah's N.C. Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2006) ("[T]he FMLA does not require an employee to be restored to his prior job after FMLA leave if he would have been discharged had he not taken leave."); Adkins v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 224 Md.App. 115, 119 A.3d 146, 165 (2015) ("[U]nder both [the MFEPA] and federal law, the employee still must identify a reasonable accommodation that could have been possible."), aff'd, 448 Md. 197, 137 A.3d 211 (2016). 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