Brooks v. Microsoft Corp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2004
• Docket: 03-2345
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2345

STEPHEN BROOKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-257-3-H)

Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 11, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Rainey, Amy L. Cox Gruendel, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Charles Archibald Edwards, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Richard H. Sauer, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Redmond, Washington, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Stephen Brooks appeals the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in

which he alleged his employer failed to accommodate his

disability.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge. See Brooks v. Microsoft, No. CA-02-257-3-H

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 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

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).