Case Name: Marcell J. WHITE; Brenda C. Moss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-10
Citations: 67 F. App'x 847
Docket Number: No. 03-1266
Parties: Marcell J. WHITE; Brenda C. Moss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 847–847

Head Matter:
Marcell J. WHITE; Brenda C. Moss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-1266.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2003.
Decided July 10, 2003.
Marcell J. White, Brenda C. Moss, Appellants Pro Se. Jonathan Pharr Pearson, Erin H. Hinson, Ellzey & Brooks, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marcell J. White and Brenda C. Moss appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment in their employer's favor in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See White v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. CA-01-2926-3 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2003). 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.
Although the record suggests that White and Moss were not given a proper opportunity to object to the magistrate's report and recommendation, any error was harmless since the district court clearly conducted a de novo review of the record. See Braxton v. Estelle, 641 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir.1981).