Rickey Medlock v. Martin, LAW OFFICES OF DAWN V. MARTIN, Washington, D.C., for

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1699
RICKEY MEDLOCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense,
NIMA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
02-1093-DKC)
Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 11, 2004
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawn V. Martin, LAW OFFICES OF DAWN V. MARTIN, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney,
Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Rickey Medlock appeals from the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in his employment
discrimination action and denying his motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, he contends that the district court erred by ruling on
the motion for summary judgment prior to discovery, failing to
consider his claims of disparate impact, and granting summary
judgment on his retaliation claim. We have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinions and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Medlock v. Rumsfeld, No. CA-02-
1093-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 31, 2002; Apr. 4, 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 --