PER CURIAM.
At the close of Gerod Stukes’ presentation of evidence in his trial alleging employment discrimination, the district court granted Claude Stafford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R .Civ.P. 50(a). Stukes appeals from that final order and also alleges that the district court erred by refusing to admit certain exhibits into evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in its challenged evidentiary ruling. United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 152-53 (4th Cir.1990). Regarding the district court’s order granting Stafford’s Rule 50(a) motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s,opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stukes v. Stafford, No. CA-99-1105-2 (E.D.Va. filed Apr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 6, 2000). 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.