Marcell J. White; Brenda C. Moss v. Estelle, 641 F.2d 392, 397 5th Cir. 1981 . 2 PER CURIAM: Marcell J. White

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1266
MARCELL J. WHITE; BRENDA C. MOSS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-01-2926-3)
Submitted: June 10, 2003 Decided: July 10, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* 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).
2
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

-- 2 of 2 --