
    Ernie S. BALDWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION; Duke Energy Business Services LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-2492.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 18, 2014.
    Decided: Sept. 26, 2014.
    Jonathan Wall, Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Kenneth Love Jr., Love & Dillenback, PLLC, Rural Hall, North Carolina,, for Appellant. Stephen D. Dellinger, Molly M. Shah, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ernie S. Baldwin appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on Baldwin’s employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Baldwin v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 3:12-cv00212-MOC-DSC, 2013 WL 6056578 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      Although we agree with Baldwin that the deci-sionmakers who terminated him were aware he is Jewish, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on his religious discrimination claim. See Sandlands C & D LLC v. Cnty. of Horry, 737 F.3d 45, 54 (4th Cir.2013) ('‘[Although the court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence [to defeat summary judgment].” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
     