UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2567 TONY EUGENE BARNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-94-128) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Eugene Barnett, Appellant Pro Se. William Pinkney Herbert Cary, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting Appellee summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion* and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Barnett v. Burlington Indus., No. CA-94- 128 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 1994). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993). Subsequent to issuance of the magistrate judge's final order and Barnett's appeal from that order, the district court issued an order dis- missing Barnett's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We, however, have jurisdiction only to review the order of the magis- trate judge, because the parties did not consent to an appeal to the district court judge under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(4) (West 1993), and Barnett properly exercised his right to appeal directly to this court under § 636(c)(3). 2