Carlton L. Moses v. Yokohama Tire Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1024
CARLTON L. MOSES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-135)
Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry N. Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Bayard Easter Harris, Thomas M. Winn, III, Daniel C.
Summerlin, WOODS ROGERS, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM:
Carlton L. Moses appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to his employer, Yokohama Tire
Corporation, in this discrimination and retaliation action filed
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29
U.S.C. § 621 (2000). We affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 863
F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is properly
granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when
the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact
to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). In determining whether summary
judgment is appropriate, the facts are viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255; Smith v. Va.
Commonwealth Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir. 1996).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix,
and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See
Moses v. Yokohama Tire Corp., No. CA-01-135 (W.D. Va. filed Dec. 9,
2003; entered Dec. 10, 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 --