
    Rorie N. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and AC&S, Inc.; Amchem Products, Inc.; C.E. Thurston & Sons, Inc.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; Dana Corporation, Individually & As a Successor in Liability to Smith Kanzler; The Flintkote Co.; General Refractories Company; Georgia-Pacific Corporation; Halliburton Energy Services Corp.; Honeywell, Inc., agent of Allied-Signal, Inc. (Formerly Allied Corporation) Successor-in-Interest to Bendix Corporation; Hopeman Brothers, Inc.; International Minerals & Chemical Corp., now known as I.M.C. Corporation; International Paper Corporation, f/k/a Champion International Corporation, f/k/a U.S. Plywood Corp. & Champion Papers, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Selby, Battersby & Co., now known as SB Decking, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; Waco Insulation, Inc., now known as Waco, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; General Electric Co.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendants.
    No. 15-2582
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 6, 2016
    Decided: November 21, 2016
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert J. Krask, Magistrate Judge. (4:14-cv-00091-RJK)
    Paul A. Weykamp, Law Offices of Paul A. Weykamp, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellant. Patricia Bugg Turner, Henry N. Ware, Jr., Elizabeth Scott Turner, Spotts Fain PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rorie N. Wilson appeals the magistrate judge’s orders excluding the testimony of Wilson’s expert witness' and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Wilson v. CBS Corp., No. 4:14-cv-00091-RJK (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2015). 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  