
    Ronald W. CONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELDEN WIRE & CABLE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-1519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 31, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 20, 2001.
    Herbert W. Louthian, Sr., Deborah R.J. Shupe, Louthian Law Firm, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellant. Marylin E. Culp, Amy Lynne Layton, Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P., Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ronald W. Conley appeals from the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Conley’s claim that he was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp.2001). On appeal, Conley claims that: (1) the district court erred in finding that he was not “disabled” or a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA; (2) that the district court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion regarding reasonable accommodation to Conley and that the court’s conclusion that Belden offered him reasonable accommodations was contrary to the evidence; and (3) Belden’s reason for discharging Conley was a pretext for unlawful termination under the ADA.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. Du-Pont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

After reviewing the briefs, joint appendix, and the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Belden and dismissing the action. We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Conley v. Belden Wire & Cable Co. Inc., No. CA-99-4016-10-17BC (D.S.C. filed Feb. 22, 2001; entered Feb. 26, 2001 & Mar. 16, 2001).

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.  