UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2649 LESTER STOVALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LYNDA S. STOVALL, and on behalf of others similarly situated, et el, Plaintiff, versus PEPSI COLA DCLP, Defendant - Appellee, and NOEL SMITH, Business Agent, Beverage Drivers Union Local #67; STEPHEN MCBRIDE, Secretary, Beverage Drivers Union Local #67; WILLIE BOYCE, Human Resources Manager, Pepsi Cola DCLP; SONNY BROOKEN, Chief Financial Officer, Pepsi Cola DCLP; GAVIN SAUNDERS, Warehouse Manager, Pepsi Cola DCLP; PAUL O'CONNOR, Supervisor, Pepsi Cola DCLP; JIM SCHULTZ, Gen- eral Manager, Pepsi Cola DCLP; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO BEVERAGE DRIVERS LOCAL UNION #67, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-303-PJM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,* Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Stovall, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Daniel Graeff, Phillip Matthew Schwartz, CARR, MORRIS & GRAEFF, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). * Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defen- dants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). 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. Stovall v. Pepsi Cola DCLP, No. CA-95-303- PJM (D. Md. Sept. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3