Henderson v. County of Henrico, Virginia

 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1436 WILLIAM SHERROD HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00032-RLW) Submitted: September 10, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sherrod Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Thomas Tokarz, II, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Sherrod Henderson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Henrico County on Henderson’s complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000). This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Henderson v. County of Henrico, No. 3:08-cv-00032-RLW (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 14, 2008; entered Apr. 15, 2008). 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 2