
    Timothy A. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FUJIFILM MANUFACTURING USA INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Fuji Photo Film Incorporated, Defendant. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Timothy A. Jackson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fuji Photo Film Incorporated; Fujifilm Manufacturing USA Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Supporting Appellant.
    Nos. 11-1129, 11-1131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 23, 2011.
    Decided: Sept. 29, 2011.
    Timothy A. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayne Hodges, III, Richard James Morgan, McNair Law Firm, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Carolyn L. Wheeler, Acting Associate General Counsel, Vincent Blackwood, Assistant General Counsel, James M. Tucker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Supporting Appellant.
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 11-1129, Timothy A. Jackson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant in this action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that Jackson failed to meet his burden of showing that, within the relevant time period, he suffered from a disability and was entitled to the protections of the ADA. Jackson presented no evidence demonstrating that he was substantially limited in a major life activity during this period. See Pollard v. High’s of Baltimore, Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir.2002); Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373, 387 (4th Cir.2001). We accordingly affirm.

In No. 11-1131, Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing the action on the basis of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Fuji Photo Film, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-01403-JMC, 2011 WL 497462 (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2011).

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. 
      
       "We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir.2005).
     