
    John F. REPEDE, dba, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COURSE TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED; International Thomson Publishing, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees, and Purdue University; Gary B. Shelly, Defendants.
    No. 00-1624.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued March 2, 2001.
    Decided April 27, 2001.
    Lourie Augustus Salley, III, Lexington, SC; Kevin Michael Cunningham, Cunningham & Associates, P.C., Tega Cay, SC, for appellant. Joshua M. Rubins, Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke, L.L.P., New York, NY, for appellees. ON BRIEF: James F. Rittinger, Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke, L.L.P., New York, NY; Thomas W. Bunch, II, Robinson, McFadden & Moore, P.C., Columbia, SC, for appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Dr. John F. Repede entered into a publishing agreement with Course Technology, Inc. to contribute material to a computer programming textbook. He authored several versions of the textbook until 1998, when Course Technology decided to hire a different author to draft future versions of the book. Repede brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against Course Technology, Inc. and Course Technology’s parent, International Thomson Publishing, Inc. (collectively, “Course Technology”). Repede alleged that Course Technology had breached the publishing contract by denying him a right of first refusal to draft subsequent versions of the textbook. Repede also claimed that Course Technology issued fraudulent sales reports that understated his entitlement to royalties. Course Technology moved for summary judgment on both claims, and the district court granted the motion. The court held that under the unambiguous terms of the contract, Repede does not have a right of first refusal. In addition, the court held that Repede’s fraud claim failed because he could not have reasonably relied on the misstatements in the sales reports. Repede now appeals.

After considering the joint appendix, the parties’ briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel, we are persuaded that the district court reached the correct result. We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Repede v. Course Tech., Inc., C.A. No. 0:99-653-19 (D.S.C. May 2, 2000).

AFFIRMED.  