
    William MCKELVY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and Capital One Financial Corporation, Defendant.
    No. 10-2031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 4, 2011.
    Decided: April 29, 2011.
    Wayne M. Scriven, Scriven Law Offices, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Rodney A. Satterwhite, Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Latoya C. Asia, McGuirewoods, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William McKelvy appeals the district court’s order granting Capital One Services, LLC’s motion for summary judgment on his claims of discriminatory removal of supervisory duties and termination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.2010), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp.2010); discriminatory denial of promotion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a (2006); and state law claims for breach of contract, wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. McKelvy argues that the district court erred when it: (i) failed to afford McKelvy eleven days to oppose Capital One’s summary judgment motion; (ii) denied McKelvy’s motion to compel; (iii) determined that McKelvy failed to rebut the at-will employment presumption; (iv) granted summary judgment on McKelvy’s retaliation claim based on Capital One’s alleged refusal to pay severance benefits if he did not withdraw his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge; and (v) improperly relied on hearsay evidence to find that Capital One established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. We have reviewed the recoi'd and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final order. McKelvy v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 3:09-cv-00821-JRS, 2010 WL 3418228 (E.D. Va. filed August 20, 2010; entered August 25, 2010). 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.  