UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 04-2421



STAN WILSON,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


TEXTRON FLEX ALLOY, INCORPORATED,

                                                 Defendant - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Carl Horn, III,
Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-220-3-H)


Submitted:     March 25, 2005                 Decided:   April 25, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stan Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Paul Carlson, Jr., Kristine
Marie Howard, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, L.L.C., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Stanleigh Maurice Wilson appeals a magistrate judge’s

order granting summary judgment to his employer on his retaliation

claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a)(1) (2000).*   This court reviews a grant of summary

judgment de novo.   Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 

, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).    Summary judgment is appropriate

only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.    Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

, 322 (1986).     This

court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party.   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

,

255 (1986).

          We find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge.    See Wilson v. Textron Flex Alloy,

No. CA-03-220-3-H (W.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2004).    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 proceed before the magistrate judge
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). (R. 2, 5).

                               - 2 -