PER CURIAM.
Samuel K. Njuguna appeals the district court’s order granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in his discrimination action, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record de novo, Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Njuguna. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Because the Appellee articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Njuguna’s termination, we find no reversible error. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Njuguna v. Nottingham, No. CA-01-72-A (E.D.Va. Sept. 5, 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.
The district courts reasons are fully set forth in the transcript of the hearing on Appellee’s motion for summary judgment.