PER CURIAM.
Myron J. Bryant appeals the district court’s order granting Professional Recovery Consultants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We affirm.
This court reviews a 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 appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials submitted in the joint appendices, and fully considered the arguments raised on appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc., Nos. CA-99-654-5-BO(3); CA-00-273-5-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2001). 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.